[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
I think you missed the major point of the last reply - do you have any evidence that what you are doing _does_ make things easier for AT users?
I base that on research done by others (I'm not a researcher). For instance http://www.usability.com.au/resources/ozewai2005/#section42 (deep link to recommendations).
I have been told in the past that the way that AT users 'browse' a page is very different to the way that a fully sighted user does, so I am curious as to whether 'skip to' links are any use, particularly when in multiples.
First of all, it's not all just about AT. Skip links can make things easier for any user of a text browser or device with a small screen like mobile phones.
Of course AT users browse a page in a different way than avarege browser users do. Isn't that what the AT is meant for, providing a different way to browse the page?
About multiple 'skip to' links... I must admit that I've not seen a test that proves it does add extra accessibility, but neither have I seen one saying it doesn't. Logic thinking tells me that if 1 or 2 'skip to' links improve accessibility, 5 or 7 will probably not make a page inaccessible. You may say that it adds extra links to step through, but in fact it does a similar thing as some ATs do as well: provide shortcuts to major parts of the page. ATs that do so use headers in the page to link to. I do a similar thing although I use far from all headers. By starting with linking to the content and putting the links to the various kinds/levels of navigation at the end of this little 'skip to' menu, the menu itself can easily be skipped for the most part as well.
cheers, Sander ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
