- From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:49:07 -0800 (PST)
- To: 'Ramón Corominas' <listas@ramoncorominas.com>, "'Morten Tollefsen'" <morten@medialt.no>
- Cc: "'Jon Hanna'" <jon@hackcraft.net>, "'WAI Interest Group'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Ramon wrote: > Therefore, if the links' behaviour is the same (opening in the same browser window), the visual differenciation is "additional information", and not "main information required to understand the content". And > When using little icons with alt/title texts, we tend to forget that there is people with low vision or motor disabilities that will not use a screen reader (so they will not access the alt text) If you say the icons are additional information not required to understand the page and thus not required then the second concern should be mitigated. In my opinion if color alone was used to indicate the link type then it would require some additional method such as the icons. If there were no distinction made then I do not believe they would be "required" as no one would have the benefit of that knowledge. I personally like the little icons with alternative text. I do agree that their alt text could be difficult to access and that alt text should be keyboard accessible -- however, I believe those are issues that need to be addressed by the makers of browsers. Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2010 13:49:40 UTC