- From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 21:24:06 +0000
- To: "Jens O. Meiert" <jens@meiert.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: W3C Public HTML <public-html@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: jens.meiert@gmail.com [mailto:jens.meiert@gmail.com] On Behalf Of > Jens O. Meiert > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:35 PM > > > > it would help if you could elaborate on the decision to use lists. > > > My view is that they’re not necessary. > > > > What about what Niels Matthijs said, in a comment to your post: [1] > > > > ]] When you don’t want lists, then at least use block elements to > > differentiate between element. With inline elements a breadcrumb > > becomes a single “sentence” which makes no sense at all. Each link is > > a separate entity, not part of an inline expression. [[ > > That depends on what problem we’re trying to solve now. Is reading > breadcrumbs as a sentence a problem? I couldn’t test but “Home [pause] > Foo [pause] Bar” does not look like an issue to me. Even without a pause a > user likely understands what’s going on, which means there’s no reason to > add more markup. Are some of our users still on older assistive technologies? I ask because (the now out-of-date) WCAG 1.0 had a specific item[1] about avoiding adjacent links without some other character to separate them. While WCAG 1.0 may be out of date, some people may still be using AT that is old and suffers from the very problem that conformance item was trying to solve. My suggestion is that you should fire up a screen reader and see if it really *is* an issue to you. In a quick test with NVDA, I have to tab through every link anyway (so it's not an issue), but I am not a representative user. 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-divide-links
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 21:33:27 UTC