- From: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 19:28:59 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> From: Massey, Nancy [SMTP:nmassey@postoffice.dca.net] > > As I review the page, my first thought is I can't read the links on the > left hand side because they are too small. I do not have a disability, but > > I am myopic. When I run my mouse over the link hoping that the alt tag > text > [DJW:] This is real text, not the usual image trick. There are no absolute font sizes, so selecting a large font in the browser gets rid of most of the problems. Moreover the layout doesn't break down if you disable font sizes altogether whilst using a large size. (One exception is the "click on the map message", but I didn't see that until I'd already tried.) I'd say there was no problem from a font size point of view. Colour contrasts are good. Bad points are: It's not valid HTML, but the number of errors is small by typical web standards. Non-standard link colours in the side bar No underline on links on side bar, or list of dates. No title on image map (the job of title is done by javascript manipulation of the status line - I disable javascript). It still tool tips on IE. Flat HTML. Everything seems to be done with DIV and SPAN, which should be last resorts (in my view, sidebars are lists and should be done with LI). The reading order puts the menus before the main text. Distracting flashing number on map. I didn't spot the "click for details", but that should not be necessary, and you should never say "click". It's an inappropriate fix for removing the underline from the link, thus hiding the fact that it is a link. Compared with most sites, it looks good to me. >
Received on Tuesday, 18 July 2000 14:36:30 UTC