- 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