- From: John Foliot - bytown internet <foliot@bytowninternet.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:48:19 -0400
- To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>, "W3c-Wai-Ig" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Jim, How about [title="Return to Top of Page"] and [title="Return to Site Navigation"]? This is essentially a "reverse" of the Section 508 "skip nav" requirement. JF > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Jim Ley > Sent: July 12, 2002 9:31 AM > To: W3c-Wai-Ig > Subject: Re: accessible navigation > > > > "John Foliot - bytown internet" <foliot@bytowninternet.com> > > > Though I understand how the client might not agree... > > > > > > > How would a client not agree to making their site "better"? Better for > > those with disabilities sure, but also for older users (like their > parents > > perhaps?), inexperienced users, power users, etc. Having these links > adds > > options to each page and improves navigation > > I don't entirely agree, if you have a link at the bottom of the page > saying "to the content" or "to the navigation" I am confused, I've just > read the content and now there's a link to some more content, or is it > the same content or what? similarly with the navigation, new navigation, > different navigation I think the link text here is important to the > issue, and no-one's suggested what that might be. > > Jim. >
Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 09:48:25 UTC