- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 07:31:18 -0500
- To: (wrong string) ël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org
At 03:44 AM 2002-04-05 , Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote: >le mar 02-04-2002 à 15:55, Al Gilman a écrit : >> OK I looked at them. In a quasi decision-tree development: >> >> ? At the top level of the decision tree, to include a navbar like this or not: >> >> .. definite yes, but >> >> ? At the head of the page, in order from outer scope to inner scope? >> >> .. can live with this. I believe that there is a genuine cross-current between what is fluent and usable in vision and in speech in this regard. For speech the optimum thing would be to have all these links present in the page but after the main content and in ascending order of breadth of scope, from inner to outer. *But,* on one key condition: >> >> ? What broke? The skip link. The skip-nav link should be the first >> or second link encountered as one processes the page in tabbing order >> on opening the page from a URI-reference with no #fragment qualifier. > >Would it be enough to put a tabindex=1 (or 2) on the skip-nav link? And >then put the following tabindex back to the navigation bar? > On the one hand, all I remember is that TABINDEX is not something one can trust for anything that one has to count on. This would suggest the answer is 'no.' The problem with that answer is that I don't have a professional backup for the position. The problems that I can recall were on the order of - Netscape support for this feature -- is that now solid? - People would assign TABINDEX values to a few things that they care about and not realize what would follow after, which turned out to be a mess. BUT, in this case where what we want _is_ to resume in the textual order of the elements, it could work. IF we are to use this it should be carefully user-tested. Al >Dom >-- >Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ >W3C's Webmaster >mailto:dom@w3.org >
Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 07:31:35 UTC