Thread Subject: Re: Bypassing content.
Note
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Peter Wallack
Date: Mon, Jun 11 2007 11:35 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: David Poehlman: "Re: Bypassing content."
- Previous message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Bypassing content."
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
But what structure are we going to recommend? If I markup a page with
<H#> tags, then screen readers do a beautiful job of letting me
jump to 'blocks of content' (i.e. press 'h' in JAWS to get a list of
all the headers in the page). But what about the keyboard-only user who
isn't running AT? Are we really going to require that every web page
code something in addition to the <H#> tags simply because the
(mainstream) browsers themselves don't provide the same navigation
mechanisms as the screen readers? And how would we make these visible -
yet another navigation bar on the page? (that itself would need to be
skippable).<br>
<br>
For fun, I just tried using section508.gov with the keyboard only.
Really awful. (I really like the popups that say you are leaving the
site, like on 'FAQs', even though all you did was navigate onto the
link.) It might help this discussion, particularly in defining 'block
of content' if someone could:<br>
<ul>
<li>tell us a site that they think has done it well</li>
<li>pick a site and describe how they think it should work</li>
</ul>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Peter Wallack
Accessibility Program Director
Oracle Corporation</pre>
<br>
<br>
Hoffman, Allen wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">OK I'm following the logic.
This does highlight that these skip-nav and consistently using structure
to navigate may be indeed separable concepts.
Allen Hoffman -- <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>; v: 202-447-0303
-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ">mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>] On Behalf Of Andrew
Kirkpatrick
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:50 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Bypassing content.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Andrew:
Are you saying method to skip repetitive (or blocks) does not need to
be visible? it won't meet functional performance criteria if it isn't
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">made visible.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
An invisible skip link wouldn't satisfy the Functional perfomance
criteria, but neither would any invisible UI control. However,
functionality that allows users to move to different locations using the
semantic structure in a document or application is neither visible or
invisible, so I don't think that the requirement this this be visible is
necessary.
AWK
- Next message in Thread: David Poehlman: "Re: Bypassing content."
- Previous message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Bypassing content."
WebAIM is an initiative of:
