I disagree. You should be practicing accessible, progressive
enhancement.
Agreed, so I don't think we're in disagreement. This was the reason
for my comment.
The first example does have a URI, it's the relative
path to Waldorf-Astoria-Photo.html and should be set up to work from
a spider, script disabled browser, or even a "right-click to open
link in new tab."
I'm not sure if people are missing it or what... so here it is again:
-------------------
href="javascript:ahah('Waldorf-Astoria-Photo.html','Photo');"
--------------------
This is a link only browsers with javascript can possibly understand.
My point was that if you don't intend to send the user somewhere, you
shouldn't use an anchor.
Your practice of wiring javascript to a button is
effectively hijacking the user's browser will do nothing except
ensure the content is inaccessible to all but a few targeted user
agents.
Perhaps. Or my suggestion reinforces the concept of using a button
when you don't intend to send your visitors to another page, instead
of a link.
<a href="Waldorf-Astoria-Photo.html" class="ahah-photo">photo</a>
I agree this is a better suggestion in this case /if/ the intent is to
provide a fallback to take the user to a new page: something not
possible in the original example. However, the intent to not send the
user to another page isn't something you can fix with progressive
enhancement.
Works as a regular link and–once the right event handlers are
assigned–will work as a JS-enhanced interface.
James
Thanks for pointing out the better solution.
Ben West
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
