Drew, Mike,
So, if I get this right then technically speaking:
<title>Page name - Site name</title>
<div>Site name</div> [not visible & 2nd part of the <title> -
Placed behind an image of the same]
<h1>Content (Page name) heading</h1> [visible & 1st part of the <title>]
<h2></h2> [repeat as required keeping all sub headings
in the correct order]
<h3></h3>
<h2></h2>
<h3></h3>
<h4></h4>
<h3></h3>
<h2></h2>
<div>
<span>Navigation</span> [not visible, <span> is of no use to
no-vision, but okay for lo-vision, users]
[list of links]
</div>
<div>
<span>External links</span> [not visible]
<h2>link heading</h2> [this heading has to be a h2 because you
cannot guarantee a h2 in the content]
[text & link]
<h2>link heading</h2>
[text & link]
</div>
<div>
<span>Footer links</span> [not visible]
[list of links]
</div>
Note: [not visible] means you cannot see it but neither "visibility:hidden" nor
"display:none" are used.
Hmm.
I have observed vision-impaired users skipping through <h?> tags as the preferred
method of navigating a page.
The tendency is not to use the access keys even though they happily know they are
there.
This is due I believe to inconsistencies in the declarations, and availability, on
pages world-wide.
My concern is now that by removing the <h?> tags from the navigation sections, I'm
actually making the page a lot less accessible.
For the best compromise while keeping it all accessible, I'm now considering:
<title>Page name - Site name</title>
<div>Site name</div> [not visible & 2nd part of the <title> -
Placed behind an image of the same]
<h1>Content (Page name) heading</h1> [visible & 1st part of the <title>]
<h2></h2> [repeat as required, keeping all sub headings
in the correct order]
<h3></h3>
<h2></h2>
<h3></h3>
<h4></h4>
<h3></h3>
<h2></h2>
<h2>Navigation</h2> [not visible, <h2> is good for both no-vision
and lo-vision users]
[list of links]
<h3>External links</h3> [not visible]
<h4>link heading</h4>
[text & link]
<h4>link heading</h4>
[text & link]
<h3>Footer links</h3> [not visible]
[list of links]
Would that be in my best interest and a good balance?
mike 2k:)2
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
