CSS used, still accessible without. I really don't think accesskeys are all that good for accessiblity though. See http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/01/04/im_still_off/
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:28:51 +1100, Cade Whitbourn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What's in a good accessibility statement? > Where are the best accessibility statements you've come across on the web? > > I'm currently writing one for the site I work on, to coincide with a > redesign that's nearing completion. I haven't found many good examples of > statements on other corporate sites. > > Some background to my site: It won't validate due to technical constraints > (unreliable CMS, legacy code, third-party systems), but it's been built 'in > the spirit' of web standards (i.e semantic markup, CSS for most of the > layout, a few accessibility features etc). > > The sections I have so far in my statement: > - Access keys - what are they, how to use them. > - Navigation - unordered lists which degrade well, skip to content link, > prominent search box, comprehensive sitemap > - Standard compliance - built to HTML4.01 but will not validate, semantic > markup used, WCAG compliance > - Technical requirements - javascript used but degrades without, screen rez > recomended for visual design but degrades > - A list of the devices that the site has been tested for accessibility on. > > Whatdya reckon? > > Cheers, > Cade > ****************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ****************************************************** > > ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
