> Fwiw, I don't agree about accesskeys [1]. The article on your site seems to advocate the use of access keys. The concept of allowing users to define which access keys they can use is an interesting and clever approach. Have you got an example of this out in the wild? There are certainly pitfalls with access keys. That fact there isn't a set of standard access keys across various platforms/browsers, is a real shame and goes against them tremendously. Is this why your feelings on access key usage has changed? Or do you have some other reservations?
> Using title on anchors is also something I would not do. These links are > meaningful already and title is ignored by most screen-reader users anyway. > Besides, the tooltip that title creates is often a problem for people using > screen magnifiers. I think that any additional content that might help a user, sight impaired or otherwise, can't be a bad thing. It adds to the document's semantic value and might also aid in SEO. You are right however, some screen readers will ignore this 'extra' content (other side of the coin, some will not). I think the problem is that the 'title' attribute is abused or used incorrectly. If it doesn't contain any additional semantic value, then perhaps it should be omitted. I was unaware that screen magnifiers may experience problems with tooltips... Thanks for the tip (no pun intended) on that. Karl ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
