Re: Copywriting for Screenreaders (was Alt text for URL's)

The controversy arrises as a result of a "standard" skip... link.  What we 
need is a standard that promotes and encourages good site structure which 
"skip..." has failed to do.  I agree with you though.  If the controversy 
were table of contents vs main content, I'd see no issue.  Main content as 
an internal anchor is perfectly reasonable except that someones tras can 
often be someone elses food.

Johnnie Apple Seed
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tina Holmboe" <tina@greytower.net>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Copywriting for Screenreaders (was Alt text for URL's)



On 14 Feb, david poehlman wrote:

> I learn as I go.  It's good tat you can use css but suppose I decide I
> want to put it on tape. Never mind this road.  Anchors have been
> around longer than te wai and if judicious use of internal anchors is
> made, skip to anything is not needed.

  Indeed they have - which is why the controversy surrounding this issue
  confuses me.

  There is really no difference, in principle or in practice, between a
  "table of contents" link and a "main content" link. Both internal,
  both within the standards, both used exactly as internal links are
  meant to be used.

  Perfect.

  As for the need - yes, there will *always* be a need for internal
  anchors to skip between various sections of a document - UNLESS, of
  course, we decide to predefine a number of a types of sections a
  document can have. Sortof not the new-fangled XML-type method, that.


-- 
 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
   [+46] 0708 557 905

Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 15:14:04 UTC