- From: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:24:13 -0400
- To: Jesper Tverskov <jesper@tverskov.dk>
- CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi Jesper-- Very nice article! Did you use "Footnote 3" rather than the standard "Ibid." to make it easier for screen reader users to find an earlier reference? I also imagine you didn't link back to footnote 3 because of all the duplicate links it could cause. Mike Elledge Jesper Tverskov wrote: > Hi list > > I have published an article, "The benefits of footnotes in webpages", > http://www.smackthemouse.com/footnotes. It discusses a lot of accessibility > issues. > > Would you agree that even though the superscript of a footnote index number > is presentational in nature, the footnote being a footnote also without > superscript, it is correct to use the sup XHTML element instead of just the > span element and CSS? Any webdesigner would find it natural to use the sup > element not just for let us say mathematical and chemical notation where it > is needed but also for the footnote index number. If there is no space in > between a word and a following footnote, the sup element could make it a > little easier for screen readers to tell them apart than if the span element > is used. > > Do you also agree that the title attribute is almost 99% bad from an > accessibility point of view as implemented in today's browsers? That the > browsers must come up with something better? > > Other comments to the article are welcome. Please help me improve it. > > Best regards, > > Jesper Tverskov > www.smackthemouse.com > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 28 August 2006 14:24:36 UTC