RE: [techs] text equivalents in links

> <a href="next.html"><img src="arrow.gif" alt="Next page"></a>
> <a href="next.html">Next page</a>

You wouldn't make those two links because they aren't.

> But for non-graphical browsers it does result in two links to the same
> destination with the same link text, and I think it would be terrifically
> annoying.

I don't see why. Twice as many targets to hit.

> Our techinques would require that there be alt text for the image in the
> first link because that link needs its destination explained, so you can't
> put in null alt text and hope that fixes the problem.

What?

> The better solution
> is, as John said, to put both the image and the text in the same link, then
> set the image to null alt text, e.g.,

The better solution is to use a right-arrow character, &rarr;. But 
graphical arrows can be quite nice.

> <a href="next.html"><img src="arrow.gif" alt=""> Next page</a>
> 
> The problem with this for graphical designers is that the hyperlink
> underline will be there between the image and the text, and they don't like
> the look. The best solution I know to that issue is 

to act like it's 1999 and use CSS;

a.link { text-decoration: none; border: none; }

Problem solved.

> It does seem to me that in principle user agents could detect this type of
> duplicate link and only present it once, as Chris suggests. 

I suppose they could, but we have other priorities for user-agent remixing 
of Web sites.

> But really
> that's a correction for author misbehaviour, 

It is nothing of the sort. It is *correct* behaviour for Web *designers*. 
Their visual sensibility is perfectly valid when combined with valid code 
and standards compliance. Stop hating the visual Web.

> > -----Original Message-----

Yeah, we read that.

-- 

    Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
    Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
    Expect criticism if you top-post

Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 16:26:22 UTC