- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 13:04:24 +1000 (EST)
- To: Nir Dagan <nir.dagan@econ.upf.es>
- cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Nir solution is, using tables, what I recommend people do using frames: Have a side (or top or bottom) frame of navigation links, use proper NOFRAMES to allow people in to the body of the site, and include a redundant set of navigation links at the bottom of each content page for those not using frames-enabled browsing. Charles McCathieNevile On Sun, 19 Jul 1998, Nir Dagan wrote: > I would like to suggest a (partial) solution to the top vs. bottom > navigation links debate: > > For a large site that has many links, often the site > has a table where the first (left) cell is a navigation "side-bar" > and the second (right) cell is the flow of text. in this case, > when linking to other pages, link to a named anchor in the > begining of the flow of text in the second cell. > > For the sighted it is the same. The named anchor is in > the first line of the page. In a browser that linearizes tables > you skip the links. > > In addition add "redundent" links as a paragraph in the > bottom, for the benefit of non-sighted who skipped the first > cell and for all of those (sightted or not) who read the page > through and scrolled down to the bottom. > > This is a partial solution since speech machines that read > line by line of a screen don't like tables like this in the > first place. However if the web author insists on this > table for layout, it seems a reasonable linking scheme, > I think. > > Regards, > > Nir Dagan > Assistant Professor of Economics > Universitat Pompeu Fabra > Barcelona (Spain) > > email: dagan@upf.es > Website: http://www.econ.upf.es/%7Edagan/ > >
Received on Saturday, 18 July 1998 23:26:15 UTC