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]
*******************************************************************

Reply via email to