- From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:49:53 +0000
- To: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- CC: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>, Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>, "Slatin, John M" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, TeamB <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
Agreed: "interface element that can receive focus" is a better notion. Sean Hayes Standards and Policy Team Accessible Technology Group Microsoft Phone: mob +44 7977 455002 office +44 117 9719730 -----Original Message----- From: Gez Lemon [mailto:gez.lemon@gmail.com] Sent: 05 March 2007 15:48 To: Sean Hayes Cc: Loretta Guarino Reid; Tim Boland; Slatin, John M; TeamB Subject: Re: RE: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording On 05/03/07, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote: <blockquote> Between discontinuous blocks, navigate to the first link of the inline progression order in some other block (either the nearest block in the block progression direction, or the inline progression direction, at the authors choice). </blockquote> Instead of link, could we use "interface element that can receive focus" or "interface element", so that it's less specific? Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Monday, 5 March 2007 15:50:15 UTC