- From: Rafael Romero <Rafael.Romero@uv.es>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 13:06:49 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
The last one although shorter is not automatically recognised by email clients and browsers as a URL, and therefore appears as non-active in the screen. I think this is a disadvantage, which forces everyone to cut/paste or type the URL for activating it. Particularly problematic for "slow-typing" users. Among the rest, I think second one is best from a visual perspective, but I do not know how this <http://www.foo.com/> might sound when rendered by a screen reader. Best regards, Rafael Romero. A 11:46 09/07/99 +0100, ha escrito: >Are there any accessibility issues regarding the citation of URLs, both >online and in print? > >We've been having some discussion locally about the conventions for our >newsletter. > >The following have been suggested: > ><URL:http://www.foo.com/> ><http://www.foo.com/> >http://www.foo.com/ >www.foo.com > >The final alternative, with a Courier font, has been suggested as it's >shorter than the others. > >Would this cause any accessibility (or other) problems? > >Thanks > >Brian > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >----------- >Brian Kelly, UK Web Focus >UKOLN, University of Bath, BATH, England, BA2 7AY >Email: b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk URL: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ >Homepage: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/b.kelly.html >Phone: 01225 323943 FAX: 01225 826838 > >
Received on Friday, 9 July 1999 07:08:06 UTC