- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 12:39:03 +0200
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "Vivienne CONWAY" <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:11:25 +0200, Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au> wrote: > Hi all > > Wow, thanks for all your speedy responses. > > Judging from your responses, I'm leaning towards always doing an > additional screen reader test for that point if there are no skip > links. I normally always check every page with at least NVDA anyway. > If there are no skip links, I'll see if I can use the heading structure > to get to the main content. If so, I think I should assume that it > passes 2.4.1. > > Does that sound reasonable? Assuming you are describing your test methodology, rather than letting people sell a site as fine for user setups that won't actually work. cheers > Regards > > Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT > PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A. > Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd. > v.conway@ecu.edu.au > v.conway@webkeyit.com > Mob: 0415 383 673 > > This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the > individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, > you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this > email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, > please notify me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy > the original message. > ________________________________________ > From: Patrick H. Lauke [redux@splintered.co.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, 9 May 2012 5:18 PM > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > Subject: Re: Using Heading to Replace Skip Links > > In which case, if that's how you see it, you can interpret WCAG 2.0's SC > as only being fulfilled if a page has skip links. That's the beauty of > WCAG 2.0 ... it's so open to interpretation :) > > However, this does open up more interesting discussions: if the > functionality is available, but only if users have a particular > browser/extension/AT, is it a pass or a fail? The argument seems to be > that it should work everywhere, regardless of what software the user > has. Taking it to extremes, does that mean a site should be usable by a > visually impaired/blind user when they're not using a screen reader? > Should we then require sites to be self-voicing? A strawman, admittedly, > but this goes to the heart of "accessibility supported". > > P > > > On 09/05/2012 10:09, Rajiv Shah wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In plain English, I think that, without browser extensions, user agents >> provide no method keyboard method to skp past headings on a page. Skip >> links at least aid the keyboard user without the use of any add-ons to >> provide this feature. This, of course, helps someone with a mobility >> impairment. >> >> Regards, >> >> Rajiv >> >> >> ---- Original message ---- >>> Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 09:57:08 +0100 >>> From: "Patrick H. Lauke"<redux@splintered.co.uk> >>> Subject: Re: Using Heading to Replace Skip Links >>> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org >>> >>> On 09/05/2012 09:24, Vivienne CONWAY wrote: >>>> The reason I ask all of this, is that some of the automated tools >>>> pick up the lack of skip links as failures of 2.4.6. and others >>>> don't, especially if there are semantically structured headings (h1 >>>> etc). >>> >>> Automated tools were never reliable, even in WCAG 1.0 times, as >>> solutions are not binary accessible/not-accessible. This is even more >>> true for WCAG 2.0 which is driven by SCs that can be achieved in a >>> variety of known (what's documented in the informative techniques) and >>> unknown (something that's not documented, but achieves the same end >>> result for real users) ways. >>> >>>> Frankly, I think it should be a requirement as we're wanting to make >>>> things better for people to get to the content, not more difficult. >>>> However, that probably comes down to usability. >>> >>> Then you'd end up having to add qualifiers like "Until user agents..." >>> to the requirements, and focus explicitly on specific markup constructs >>> (rather than being technology-agnostic), which are both things that >>> WCAG >>> 2.0 tried very hard to shy away from. >>> >>> P >>> -- >>> Patrick H. Lauke >>> ______________________________________________________________ >>> re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively >>> [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] >>> >>> www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk >>> http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ >>> ______________________________________________________________ >>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke >>> ______________________________________________________________ >>> > > > -- > Patrick H. Lauke > ______________________________________________________________ > re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively > [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] > > www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk > http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ > ______________________________________________________________ > twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke > ______________________________________________________________ > > This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you > must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have > received it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and > delete any record of it from your system. The information contained > within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the > University accepts no liability for the accuracy of the information > provided. > > CRICOS IPC 00279B > -- 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 10:39:43 UTC