RE: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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] *** *** 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
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/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help
RE: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links
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
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
I tend to use a good old unordered list for such things Bob. - Original Message - From: Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 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 emwant/em any characters in there! I have tried using: div id=sitelink p [a href=sitemap.htmlSite Map/a] [a href=../../core/noticeboard.htmlHome/a] /p /div 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
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 emwant/em any characters in there! I have tried using: div id=sitelink p [a href=sitemap.htmlSite Map/a] [a href=../../core/noticeboard.htmlHome/a] /p /div 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] ***
Re: [WSG] The Problem of adjacent links
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 emwant/em 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
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:
div id=sitelink
p
[a href=sitemap.htmlSite Map/a
span | /span
a href=../../core/noticeboard.htmlHome/a]
/p
/div
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
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
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
What is the current thinking on this? How can I do this WITHOUT putting any characters in there? I don't emwant/em 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 -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- 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
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? http://htmlfixit.com/tutes/tutorial_CSS_Generated_Faux_Pipe_Delimited_Unordered_List.php Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
