- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 09:33:52 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, "Kazuhito Kidachi" <kazuhito@gmail.com>
On Wed, 09 May 2012 03:57:24 +0200, Kazuhito Kidachi <kazuhito@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Patrick H. Lauke
> <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 09/05/2012 02:08, Kazuhito Kidachi wrote:
>> On the other hand, users that DO rely on keyboard-only navigation should
>> also be using tools that make it easier for them to do so.
...
>> I believe the important part is that it's technically/programmatically
>> possible for users to navigate the structure of a page in a sensible and
>> easy manner. Not all browsers/tools/AT will be able to, but as long as
>> there's at least one tool that does support sensible navigation in this
>> fashion, I'd argue that the SC is satisfied. IMHO of course.
>
> Well, do you think web pages with proper headings/landmarks can comply
> with 2.4.1, without providing skip links, because keyboard-only users
> can choose Opera browser (or, Firefox with Heading Navigation
> Greasemonkey User Script)?
Yes, although I suggest today that this is a pretty legalistic
interpretation. It is *still* a good ide to put in skip links :S
Although it might be worth knowing that skip links were introduced as a
hack authors made because screen readers *didn't* permit header-by-header
navigation when WCAG1 was being developed and deployed.
It's not hard to make the script for other browsers, I suspect. I'll see
if I can get Daniel Glazman's script that provides a complete navigation
frame, which would be even better.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 07:34:30 UTC