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

Re: "invisible" alternate links: accessible?

From: Zachary Mutrux <zacm@etr.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 12:20:21 -0700
To: WAI <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B5B5AB84.1AB59%zacm@etr.org>
Hi All,

    CMCN: "some text-only systems implement CSS"

I didn't know that; interesting.

    DJW: "The more common way of doing this is to use alt text on a 1 pixel
    transparent GIF."

Ah, but that runs afoul of checkpoint 3.1, wouldn't you say? ;)

    DP: "I'd say it is a discriminatory proactice."

What, hiding links with color--or using tiny images as links?  Against whom
does it discriminate, as long as everyone who visits the site gets the same

    JF: "Why would you want to?"

As I stated, I thought the alternate text navigation was possibly redundant
and an unattractive visual element. That's not much of a reason, however.

This particular site uses frames; it has a static menu bar that is always
visible to sighted users using a frames-capable browser. Users non-frames
capable browsers are directed to enter through the "body" frame, and
presumably those browsers would display the "hidden" text navigation at the
bottom of each page.

Of course, the site would become unusable for a user of a frames-capable
browser with frames disabled. As noted, apparently some text-only
user-agents might still obscure the links. Finally, there is the scenario of
sighted users running across the links and being confused.

Thanks for your input--I've decided not to make any attempt to hide the
alternate text navigation. A future revision will eliminate the use of
frames altogether, and one set of navigation links can be used by all.


Zachary Mutrux, IT Generalist, National Service Resource Center
800-860-2684 x.130  |  http://www.etr.org/nsrc
831-461-0205 (TDD)  |  AOL Instant Messenger screen name: NSRC TA
Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2000 15:20:28 UTC

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