Gunlaug SÃrtun wrote:
I know there are browsers that doesn't make use of these, but how many shortcomings in browsers should we cover up for - if we want them to catch up?
Among those browsers the largest percentage is taken up by IE, which is unlikely to change before Longhorn comes out (and even then I doubt it will support LINK element navigation) and the majority (if not all) assistive technology is only designed to work with IE on Windows...so effectively you're wilfully excluding a very large chunk of the users who would benefit the most by being idealistic and blaming it (rightly, sure) on the browser. Users relying on screenreaders really don't have the same choice of simply downloading a better browser, as the assistive technology would not support it...
Remember WCAG 1.0 guideline 10: " Use interim accessibility solutions so that assistive technologies and older browsers will operate correctly" http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-interim-accessibility ... although it doesn't specifically mention LINK elements, this falls squarely within the idea/ethos behind the guideline.
-- Patrick H. Lauke _____________________________________________________ reÂdux (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
****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
