- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:52:51 -0500 (EST)
- To: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> <a> is not a valid direct subordinate of <ul>, only <li> is. As given, > this example is non-compliant because there is only white space between > links, so the links cannot be easily distinguished. Let's not be quite so doctrinaire. <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-divide-links> Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links. As I explain in my book, this is an arse-backward requirement in the first place. The sequence <a></a><a></a> is self-explanatory and fully demarcated, as is the similar <a></a> <a></a>. So: Jaws (inevitably-- WCAG's blindness-related requirements are all based on working around the peccadilloes of Jaws present when WCAG was written) couldn't differentiate adjacent links. That's not our problem. It's valid HTML. Similarly, adding those hideous D-links because user agents didn't support longdesc was also a bad idea because it too was not our problem. Now, can anyone demonstrate that current browsers and screen readers *are still unable* to "render adjacent links distinctly"? Note that a response of "Well, Product X version 1.0 from 1994, which one person in a Swiss canton still uses, is unable to differentiate links" ain't gonna cut it in 2003. We're not talking about something genuinely novel and complex, like accessible PDF or Flash. We're talking about interpreting the original HTML spec! -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Author, _Building Accessible Websites_ <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/>
Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 19:52:53 UTC