Andrew Ingram wrote:
I'm not entirely sure if this query falls under the scope of this group,
apologies for that.
One of the points in accessibility checks is that information conveyed
using colour is also conveyed without. The most common way of doing
visited links is to have them be a slightly different colour. It's my
opinion that in a purely visual sense (because I don't know how screen
readers announce visited links) this approach is inaccessible.
The approach itself is inaccessible, but it's not as if you're hiding
anything.
What are your accessible methods of styling visited links? I'd imagine
there'll be some votes for bold/normal, underline/normal. Is total
inversion of background and foreground colour accessible? You can use
fancy checkbox images (but obviously requires images which raises
another issue) you can use :before or :after and content to add a
unicode tick to any visited links (requires that your browser supports
the pseudo-classes). Some people might not even bother styling visited
links.
There are two things I'd watch out for: Screen reader users aren't used
to style information indicating visited links, so make sure it's clear
that's what it's doing. I'd also advise against bold text or anything so
widely-used and... Well, strong - because these things are steeped in
semantic value, and giving visited links the impression of being utterly
different things.
I like the tick idea a lot. You should look at PPK's unusual but very
clever system for attaching info to links
[http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/index.html] - he does a similar thing,
only without express use of :after.
Regards,
Barney
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
