I read quite an interesting conversation on a similar topic recently (was it here? I'm not sure.) One of the main things that came out was that in some circumstances a visited link should be downplayed - no need to go there again, whereas in other cases they should be played-up - to emphasise regularly used links. The difference between the two will tend to vary according to the nature of the site, but also by the nature of the user.
What this all means, is that you do need to be careful that link schemes are not too radical, regardless of the context. A little used method is to attach suitable icons, though suitable images are hard to think of, and tend to run counter to what you were asking for initially! Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Ingram > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:26 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [WSG] Visited Links and Accessibility > > 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. > > 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's a more to this than i'd previously thought and it'd > be great to > get some opinions. > > - Andrew Ingram > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
