W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2000

RE: verifying accessibility

From: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:24:01 +0100
Message-ID: <81E4A2BC03CED111845100104B62AFB5824818@stagecoach.bts.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> From:	Kynn Bartlett [SMTP:kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com]
> "Click" should be considered, in my opinion, common usage -- or
	The real problem with "click" is it represents a failure
	to think about appropriate hypertext, which, in my view,
	should represent the application of the document, not the
	mechanics of navigating it.  Terminology that assumes that
	everyone uses GUI browsers is just one symptom of this.

	[DJW:]  The issue is really a content provider one, not
	a browser user on.
> PS:  About underlines -- they were never the best way to indicate
> a link, to begin with.  People who have to have links underlined
> should use the appropriate local CSS.
	[DJW:]  An inversion of this, is if users don't like 
	underscores, they should configure the browser to 
	suppress them (which is much easier for most users
	than creating an !important style sheet to cancel
	the content provider's style sheet).

	[DJW:]  In this context, the very need for the "too tip"
	implies that the text is not clearly a link, and the
	design has not been consistent, in that some links are
	underlined and some are not.

	The problem is not whether or not links should be underlined
	but whethe content provider should change the presentation of
	links from that which the user expects.  In combination with
	non-standard link colours, http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990502.html
	points out that people are now relying on underlines
	to recognize links (and being confused when they aren't links.)
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2000 07:31:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:35:57 UTC