RE: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Stuart Foulstone]

This point originally concerned which character to use IF you use a
character to separate links. It did NOT say that this was the preferred
method.

On Mon, May 12, 2008 2:18 am, Jens-Uwe Korff wrote:
>> Screen-reader users have said that the vertical bar is THEIR preferred
> character
>
> Really? Do you have any data supporting your claim? I'm happy to learn
> more since we cannot conduct user tests on our end. As was pointed out
> before, I thought a read of
>
> "List. 5 items. Item one: "". Item two: "" etc.
>
> was good enough.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jens
>
> The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying
> files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
> any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this
> e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
> copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated
> without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received
> this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail
> or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the
> accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or
> attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax
> does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or
> attached files.
>
>
> ***
> 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]
***

RE: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Jens-Uwe Korff]

> Screen-reader users have said that the vertical bar is THEIR preferred
character

Really? Do you have any data supporting your claim? I'm happy to learn
more since we cannot conduct user tests on our end. As was pointed out
before, I thought a read of

"List. 5 items. Item one: "". Item two: "" etc.

was good enough.

Cheers,
 
Jens 

The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is 
or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, 
dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any 
attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of 
it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of 
the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise 
the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. 
Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information 
contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not 
secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents 
of this message or attached files.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Rob Kirton wrote:

I'd be highly surprised if a screen reader manages to read CSS.  Most 
struggle with HTML


But the screen reader doesn't need to read the CSS, as the DOM already 
makes it quite clear where each link starts/stops, and screen readers 
can easily distinguish between them even without any characters, gaps, 
whatever between them...


P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Thierry Koblentz]

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Kirton
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 7:00 AM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links
>
> Darren
>
> I'd be highly surprised if a screen reader manages to read CSS.  Most 
> struggle with HTML

To a certain degree they do. That's why Mike suggested - in his example - to 
hide the SPANs containg the pipe character using:

span {position:absolute;left:-em;}

rather than

span {display:none;}

-- 
Regards,
Thierry | http://www.TJKDesign.com






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Darren Lovelock]

Yeah you're quite probably right. I just thought i'd read that somewhere
recently. Must have been for something else!
 
Cheers,
 
Darren

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Rob Kirton
Sent: 09 May 2008 15:00
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links


Darren

I'd be highly surprised if a screen reader manages to read CSS.  Most
struggle with HTML

-- 
Regards

- Rob 

Raising web standards : http://ele.vation.co.uk
Linking in with others : http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton


2008/5/9 Darren Lovelock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


The content:after pseudo class can be used to seperate the links with a
vertical bar. 
 
It wont work in Internet Explorer but I believe it will still work with
screen readers (although at this point in time I cannot find anything that
confirms this).
 
That said, it's far more logical to just seperate the links using a list, as
Stuart has already stated.
 
Regards,
 


Darren Lovelock
Munky Online Web Design
 <http://www.munkyonline.co.uk/> http://www.munkyonline.co.uk
T: +44 (0)20-8816-8893

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Darren West
Sent: 09 May 2008 12:53
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links


"The reason for putting the character there in the first place is
explicitly to help screen-reader users distinguish between links."

It is my understanding that the fact that they are seperate links is what
distinguishes between links ...


"Screen-reader users have said that the vertical bar is THEIR preferred
character (even though this means repeating "vertical bar") since it is
not used for anything else and can't be confused."

Prefered to a list?



2008/5/9 Stuart Foulstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


The reason for putting the character there in the first place is
explicitly to help screen-reader users distinguish between links.

Screen-reader users have said that the vertical bar is THEIR preferred
character (even though this means repeating "vertical bar") since it is
not used for anything else and can't be confused.

Border is, of course, purely presentational and of no use whatsoever to
screen-readers and, therefore, does not fulfill accessibility
requirements.



On Fri, May 9, 2008 7:31 am, Jens-Uwe Korff wrote:
>> The most common separator used in such circumstances ... is the
> vertical bar...whilst it is quite "wordy"
>
> That's the reason why I've started *not* to use it anymore. I'm using
> borders instead and add the class "last" to the last list element to
> apply no borders at all.
>
> Whilst a border is slightly higher than a vertical bar it avoids
> screenreaders to go
>
> "home vertical bar latest posts vertical bar contact us vertical bar
> sitemap vertical bar "
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jens
>
> The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying
> files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
> any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this
> e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
> copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated
> without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received
> this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail
> or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the
> accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or
> attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax
> does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or
> attached files.
>
>
> ***
> 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]
***





***
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/unsubscr

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Rob Kirton]

Darren

I'd be highly surprised if a screen reader manages to read CSS.  Most
struggle with HTML

-- 
Regards

- Rob

Raising web standards : http://ele.vation.co.uk
Linking in with others : http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton

2008/5/9 Darren Lovelock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>  The content:after pseudo class can be used to seperate the links with a
> vertical bar.
>
> It wont work in Internet Explorer but I believe it will still work with
> screen readers (although at this point in time I cannot find anything that
> confirms this).
>
> That said, it's far more logical to just seperate the links using a list,
> as Stuart has already stated.
>
> Regards,
>
>  Darren Lovelock
> Munky Online Web Design
> http://www.munkyonline.co.uk
> T: +44 (0)20-8816-8893
>
>  --
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
> Behalf Of *Darren West
> *Sent:* 09 May 2008 12:53
> *To:* wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> *Subject:* Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links
>
> "The reason for putting the character there in the first place is
> explicitly to help screen-reader users distinguish between links."
>
> It is my understanding that the fact that they are seperate links is what
> distinguishes between links ...
>
>
> "Screen-reader users have said that the vertical bar is THEIR preferred
> character (even though this means repeating "vertical bar") since it is
> not used for anything else and can't be confused."
>
> Prefered to a list?
>
>
> 2008/5/9 Stuart Foulstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> The reason for putting the character there in the first place is
>> explicitly to help screen-reader users distinguish between links.
>>
>> Screen-reader users have said that the vertical bar is THEIR preferred
>> character (even though this means repeating "vertical bar") since it is
>> not used for anything else and can't be confused.
>>
>> Border is, of course, purely presentational and of no use whatsoever to
>> screen-readers and, therefore, does not fulfill accessibility
>> requirements.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 9, 2008 7:31 am, Jens-Uwe Korff wrote:
>> >> The most common separator used in such circumstances ... is the
>> > vertical bar...whilst it is quite "wordy"
>> >
>> > That's the reason why I've started *not* to use it anymore. I'm using
>> > borders instead and add the class "last" to the last list element to
>> > apply no borders at all.
>> >
>> > Whilst a border is slightly higher than a vertical bar it avoids
>> > screenreaders to go
>> >
>> > "home vertical bar latest posts vertical bar contact us vertical bar
>> > sitemap vertical bar "
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Jens
>> >
>> > The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying
>> > files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
>> > any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of
>> this
>> > e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
>> > copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated
>> > without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received
>> > this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return
>> e-mail
>> > or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the
>> > accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or
>> > attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore
>> Fairfax
>> > does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or
>> > attached files.
>> >
>> >
>> > ***
>> > 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]
>> ***
>>
>>
>
> ***

RE: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Darren Lovelock]

The content:after pseudo class can be used to seperate the links with a
vertical bar. 
 
It wont work in Internet Explorer but I believe it will still work with
screen readers (although at this point in time I cannot find anything that
confirms this).
 
That said, it's far more logical to just seperate the links using a list, as
Stuart has already stated.
 
Regards,
 
Darren Lovelock
Munky Online Web Design
 <http://www.munkyonline.co.uk/> http://www.munkyonline.co.uk
T: +44 (0)20-8816-8893

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Darren West
Sent: 09 May 2008 12:53
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links


"The reason for putting the character there in the first place is
explicitly to help screen-reader users distinguish between links."

It is my understanding that the fact that they are seperate links is what
distinguishes between links ...


"Screen-reader users have said that the vertical bar is THEIR preferred
character (even though this means repeating "vertical bar") since it is
not used for anything else and can't be confused."

Prefered to a list?



2008/5/9 Stuart Foulstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


The reason for putting the character there in the first place is
explicitly to help screen-reader users distinguish between links.

Screen-reader users have said that the vertical bar is THEIR preferred
character (even though this means repeating "vertical bar") since it is
not used for anything else and can't be confused.

Border is, of course, purely presentational and of no use whatsoever to
screen-readers and, therefore, does not fulfill accessibility
requirements.



On Fri, May 9, 2008 7:31 am, Jens-Uwe Korff wrote:
>> The most common separator used in such circumstances ... is the
> vertical bar...whilst it is quite "wordy"
>
> That's the reason why I've started *not* to use it anymore. I'm using
> borders instead and add the class "last" to the last list element to
> apply no borders at all.
>
> Whilst a border is slightly higher than a vertical bar it avoids
> screenreaders to go
>
> "home vertical bar latest posts vertical bar contact us vertical bar
> sitemap vertical bar "
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jens
>
> The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying
> files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
> any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this
> e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
> copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated
> without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received
> this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail
> or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the
> accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or
> attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax
> does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or
> attached files.
>
>
> ***
> 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]
***





***
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]
***

RE: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Steve Green]

The rationale for this checkpoint seems to have been long forgotten, and I
don't know of any user agent that has a problem with adjacent links. Nor
does anyone else it seems, which is why the WCAG Samurai recommended that
the checkpoint should be ignored.
 
It certainly isn't a problem for any screen reader I am aware of. I have
heard it said that it relates to some types of Braille display but no one
seems to be able to provide examples. I can imagine that user agents would
have a problem with adjacent links if they were relying on scraping the
screen rather than reading the source, and some did work that way but I
don't know any that do now.
 
Most users are unaware of how pages are marked up so I don't think that they
would have a preference for lists, vertical bars or anything else. During
user testing we encounter both, and have not observed problems with either. 
 
Steve
 
 

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Darren West
Sent: 09 May 2008 12:53
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links


"The reason for putting the character there in the first place is
explicitly to help screen-reader users distinguish between links."

It is my understanding that the fact that they are seperate links is what
distinguishes between links ...


"Screen-reader users have said that the vertical bar is THEIR preferred
character (even though this means repeating "vertical bar") since it is
not used for anything else and can't be confused."

Prefered to a list?



2008/5/9 Stuart Foulstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


The reason for putting the character there in the first place is
explicitly to help screen-reader users distinguish between links.

Screen-reader users have said that the vertical bar is THEIR preferred
character (even though this means repeating "vertical bar") since it is
not used for anything else and can't be confused.

Border is, of course, purely presentational and of no use whatsoever to
screen-readers and, therefore, does not fulfill accessibility
requirements.



On Fri, May 9, 2008 7:31 am, Jens-Uwe Korff wrote:
>> The most common separator used in such circumstances ... is the
> vertical bar...whilst it is quite "wordy"
>
> That's the reason why I've started *not* to use it anymore. I'm using
> borders instead and add the class "last" to the last list element to
> apply no borders at all.
>
> Whilst a border is slightly higher than a vertical bar it avoids
> screenreaders to go
>
> "home vertical bar latest posts vertical bar contact us vertical bar
> sitemap vertical bar "
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jens
>
> The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying
> files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
> any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this
> e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
> copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated
> without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received
> this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail
> or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the
> accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or
> attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax
> does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or
> attached files.
>
>
> ***
> 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]
***





***
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]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Darren West]

"The reason for putting the character there in the first place is
explicitly to help screen-reader users distinguish between links."

It is my understanding that the fact that they are seperate links is what
distinguishes between links ...


"Screen-reader users have said that the vertical bar is THEIR preferred
character (even though this means repeating "vertical bar") since it is
not used for anything else and can't be confused."

Prefered to a list?


2008/5/9 Stuart Foulstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> The reason for putting the character there in the first place is
> explicitly to help screen-reader users distinguish between links.
>
> Screen-reader users have said that the vertical bar is THEIR preferred
> character (even though this means repeating "vertical bar") since it is
> not used for anything else and can't be confused.
>
> Border is, of course, purely presentational and of no use whatsoever to
> screen-readers and, therefore, does not fulfill accessibility
> requirements.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 9, 2008 7:31 am, Jens-Uwe Korff wrote:
> >> The most common separator used in such circumstances ... is the
> > vertical bar...whilst it is quite "wordy"
> >
> > That's the reason why I've started *not* to use it anymore. I'm using
> > borders instead and add the class "last" to the last list element to
> > apply no borders at all.
> >
> > Whilst a border is slightly higher than a vertical bar it avoids
> > screenreaders to go
> >
> > "home vertical bar latest posts vertical bar contact us vertical bar
> > sitemap vertical bar "
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Jens
> >
> > The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying
> > files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
> > any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this
> > e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
> > copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated
> > without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received
> > this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return
> e-mail
> > or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the
> > accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or
> > attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax
> > does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or
> > attached files.
> >
> >
> > ***
> > 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]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Stuart Foulstone]

The reason for putting the character there in the first place is
explicitly to help screen-reader users distinguish between links.

Screen-reader users have said that the vertical bar is THEIR preferred
character (even though this means repeating "vertical bar") since it is
not used for anything else and can't be confused.

Border is, of course, purely presentational and of no use whatsoever to
screen-readers and, therefore, does not fulfill accessibility
requirements.



On Fri, May 9, 2008 7:31 am, Jens-Uwe Korff wrote:
>> The most common separator used in such circumstances ... is the
> vertical bar...whilst it is quite "wordy"
>
> That's the reason why I've started *not* to use it anymore. I'm using
> borders instead and add the class "last" to the last list element to
> apply no borders at all.
>
> Whilst a border is slightly higher than a vertical bar it avoids
> screenreaders to go
>
> "home vertical bar latest posts vertical bar contact us vertical bar
> sitemap vertical bar "
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jens
>
> The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying
> files is or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient,
> any use, dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this
> e-mail or any attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to
> copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated
> without the written consent of the copyright owner. If you have received
> this e-mail in error please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail
> or telephone and delete all copies. Fairfax does not guarantee the
> accuracy or completeness of any information contained in this e-mail or
> attached files. Internet communications are not secure, therefore Fairfax
> does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message or
> attached files.
>
>
> ***
> 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]
***

RE: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Jens-Uwe Korff]

> The most common separator used in such circumstances ... is the
vertical bar...whilst it is quite "wordy"

That's the reason why I've started *not* to use it anymore. I'm using
borders instead and add the class "last" to the last list element to
apply no borders at all.

Whilst a border is slightly higher than a vertical bar it avoids
screenreaders to go

"home vertical bar latest posts vertical bar contact us vertical bar
sitemap vertical bar "

Cheers,
 
Jens 

The information contained in this e-mail message and any accompanying files is 
or may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, 
dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or any 
attached files is unauthorised. This e-mail is subject to copyright. No part of 
it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the written consent of 
the copyright owner. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise 
the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete all copies. 
Fairfax does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information 
contained in this e-mail or attached files. Internet communications are not 
secure, therefore Fairfax does not accept legal responsibility for the contents 
of this message or attached files.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[David Hucklesby]

On Thu, 8 May 2008 15:52:38 +0100 (BST), Stuart Foulstone wrote:
> From a usability/accessibility point a view.
>
> The most common separator used in such circumstances (and therefore that most 
> expected
> by screen-reader users) is the vertical bar.
>

How about a border?



Cordially,
David
--




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Ben Buchanan]

What is the current thinking on this? How can I do this WITHOUT putting any
> characters in there? I don't want any characters in there!
>

You could put the two links into a list. That would separate them into two
disctinct elements without requiring punctuation.

I'm not 100% sure of the usability aspect of having such a short nav list
thought - anyone have any thoughts on that?

Also, just another vote here to follow WCAG Samurai over raw WCAG 1. The
Samurai know their stuff and the Errata really capture the best practice
that emerged while working with WCAG 1 (many notes in WCAG 1 need
clarification or are no longer correct in their original form).

-Ben

-- 
--- 
--- The future has arrived; it's just not
--- evenly distributed. - William Gibson


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Stuart Foulstone]

>From a usability/accessibility point a view.

The most common separator used in such circumstances (and therefore that
most expected by screen-reader users) is the vertical bar.

i.e. IF you add extra characters for accessibility, use the ones they are
familiar with (usability).

Addition: apparently the vertical bar character was preferred by
screen-reader users because, whilst it is quite "wordy", there is
virtually no other use for it, so very little opportunity for confusion.



On Thu, May 8, 2008 2:32 pm, Rahul Gonsalves wrote:
> On 08-May-08, at 2:33 PM, Designer wrote:
>
>> The WAI validator complains [...]
>
> Do you have to build a WAI-validating site? If you don't have to, I
> would suggest ignoring that guideline, as it doesn't necessarily
> enhance accessibility for visitors. I would suggest using :focus to
> provide visual cues - most modern screen readers are able to
> differentiate between adjacent links without difficulty.
>
>> You can use a list as someone mentioned, you can also add a hidden
>> character. [...]
>
>
> @Mike: Adding extra characters just increases the auditory clutter
> that screenreader-users have to experience. While your method is a
> good one if WAI-valid is necessary, I must respectfully disagree with
> it on accessibility grounds :-).
>
> Best,
>   - Rahul.
>
>
> ***
> 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]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Rahul Gonsalves]

On 08-May-08, at 2:33 PM, Designer wrote:


The WAI validator complains [...]


Do you have to build a WAI-validating site? If you don't have to, I  
would suggest ignoring that guideline, as it doesn't necessarily  
enhance accessibility for visitors. I would suggest using :focus to  
provide visual cues - most modern screen readers are able to  
differentiate between adjacent links without difficulty.


You can use a list as someone mentioned, you can also add a hidden  
character. [...]



@Mike: Adding extra characters just increases the auditory clutter  
that screenreader-users have to experience. While your method is a  
good one if WAI-valid is necessary, I must respectfully disagree with  
it on accessibility grounds :-).


Best,
 - Rahul.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Mike at Green-Beast.com]

Hi Bob,


I have run into a problem with having two adjacent
links at the top of a page.


You can use a list as someone mentioned, you can also add a hidden 
character. Example:




  [Site Map
 | 
  Home]

  

The span would be style with:

div#sitelink span {
 position : absolute;
 left : -9000px;
}

Cheers.
Mike Cherim 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Matthew Pennell]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Designer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> "10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent
> links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by
> spaces) between adjacent links. [Priority 3]"
>
> What is the current thinking on this? How can I do this WITHOUT putting
> any characters in there? I don't want any characters in there!


"Do not add non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces or not)
between adjacent links unless the semantics of the document naturally would
include such characters."

>From the WCAG Samurai corrections to WCAG1:
http://wcagsamurai.org/errata/errata.html

So basically, don't worry about using anything between links.

http://www.thewatchmakerproject.com/journal/455/wcag-samurai-question

-- 

- Matthew


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Ian Chamberlain]

I tend to use a good old unordered list for such things Bob.

- Original Message - 
From: "Designer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 10:03 AM
Subject: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links


I have run into a problem with having two adjacent links at the top of a 
page. The WAI validator complains:

"10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render 
adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters 
(surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links. [Priority 3]"

What is the current thinking on this? How can I do this WITHOUT putting 
any characters in there? I don't want any characters in there! 
  I have tried using:


 
   [Site Map]
   [Home]
 
   

and that validates WAI, but I hate the appearance of it. I could set the 
(non a:) text colour to be the same as the background, but that's a 
fiddle I want to avoid.

Any help would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,

Bob





***
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]
***

[WSG] The Problem of adjacent links

[Designer]

I have run into a problem with having two adjacent links at the top of a 
page. The WAI validator complains:


"10.5 Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render 
adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters 
(surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links. [Priority 3]"


What is the current thinking on this? How can I do this WITHOUT putting 
any characters in there? I don't want any characters in there! 
 I have tried using:




  [Site Map]
  [Home]

  

and that validates WAI, but I hate the appearance of it. I could set the 
(non a:) text colour to be the same as the background, but that's a 
fiddle I want to avoid.


Any help would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,

Bob





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***