On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote: > hi Ian, > > you wrote: > > About the "skip to main content" link, I have heard suggestions said that >> it's also useful for some other users (laptop users, etc) who can only >> navigate by using keyboard. So maybe it should not be replaced even if AT >> are all working well with ARIA landmark roles > > > The W3C HTML specification of main [1] contains the following note: > > Note: User agents that support keyboard navigation of content are strongly >> encouraged to provide a method to navigate to the main element and once >> navigated to, ensure the next element in the focus order is the first >> focusable element within the main element. This will provide a simple >> method for keyboard users to bypass blocks of content such as navigation >> links. >> > > Myself and others are working with browser vendors to get this > implemented. Of course it is not advised to abandon skip links until this > is broadly implemented > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-main-element > > > > with regards > > -- > SteveF > HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> > That note is an important reminder. I used to forgot to make browsers focusing on an element after users clicking on a "skip link" to skip to it, and that basically makes the "skip to" function meaningless. Thanks for the effort in pushing accessible web forward. On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote: > hi Ian, > > > Apparently, people who disagreed with the introductions of "main" role and >> <main> element are purely out of structural reason. They thought by using >> "process of elimination" is enough to tell the main content, so in the html >> structure there doesn't need to be a <main> element or an element being >> given the "main" role > > > nice in theory, but in practcie it has been shown that provision of an > element that identifies main content is a common pattern and is simpler and > more robust for the purpose than relying upon everything else been marked > up correctly > > with regards > > -- > SteveF > HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> > Yeah, I have heard people stated that the use of "process of elimination" needs a prerequisite -- document author codes everything else correctly, thus the method is sometimes unreliable and is only applied to experienced people. Kind Regards, Ian YangReceived on Sunday, 24 March 2013 17:17:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:47 UTC