Any comments so far?

J

jake

Fortron said:
Some people suggest 'jump to navigation' links other don't.
I do not know what is best to be honnest, so many people with many different
answers.
But Brucie is right about this: users can allways use the keyboard to move
up and down in a page.
Perhaps a 'jump to' link isn't about accessibility anymore but more about
personal preferences?



It probally depands on the browser used to get such a 'list of links'
i had to install some addon for IE to gain that functionality.
Other browsers just have it onboard.
Probably so; it also depends on how long the page is.

On the other hand, if the menu is presented first, then a 'skip
navigation' link can be very useful. But again it depends on whether the
site contains correct mark-up ..... especially the consistent use of
headers.

On the 'other' other hand it depends on the exact nature of the user's
disabilities (a word that some people disagree with). A sighted person
with locomotive problems (e.g. limited movement in the arms and hands)
is interested in the layout of the page and the ability to move around
it using the keyboard and with minimum hand movements.

I quite often hesitate before making sweeping statements on
accessibility because:

(a) There are quite a number different type of physical 'difficulties'
to be taken into account
(b) Apart from needing glasses to read the screen I don't have any
problems -- so can't speak with first-hand experience
(c) It's easy to underestimate the capabilities of people with
difficulties.

Still, good mark-up and an awareness of potential problems is a good
start.

regards.
 
J

jake

brucie said:
with: "fortron.net fortron.net accessibility test"

without: "fortron.net accessibility test"
You are, of course, quite correct.

It will pick up and speak the 'fortron.net' from the <title> and pick up
the rest of the text starting at 'accessibility test'.

In fact, what I hear from the <body> text is:
http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/sam.txt

In this particular case it's OK, but if applied to the other <h2> <h3>
etc. headings then it would be a problem -- not only with speaking the
heading but also with navigation.

regards.
 
J

jake

Fortron said:
Jake,

I do not know how voice-browsers work,
i tested the page in Lynx though and it seems to work fine there.
The H1 is displayed correctly on that browser.

Here it is in HPR: http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/sam.txt

In this case nothing is lost because it will pick up the 'Fortron.net'
from the said:
Do voice-browsers use the stylesheets?
Or does it read only the document structure?
Many screen-readers/voice-browsers seem to be aware of 'display:none'
and 'visibility:hidden'.

[snip]
regards.
 
B

brucie

I've read that this could invoke a google penalty. See
<http://www.google.com/webmasters/guidelines.html>
If I've jumped in out of context with an irrelevant remark, please accept
my apologies.

it doesn't. i swapped a few emails with google ages ago asking
clarification and they're only interested if you're trying to dodgy
the search results.

if google blacklisted sites for implementing techniques to help
improve site accessibility it would make a nice little lawsuit.
 
J

John C

it doesn't. i swapped a few emails with google ages ago asking
clarification and they're only interested if you're trying to dodgy
the search results.

I've seen ongoing discussions (alt.internet.search-engines,
webmasterworld.com) about whether google's algorithm can distinguish
whether the text is hidden for good or dodgy motives. Also whether the
algorithm can even spot the hidden text at all, so it takes a complaint
followed up by an actual human viewing of the page. I like your answer,
but if money or career was at stake I don't know if I could bring myself
to bank on something somebody at google said ages ago.
if google blacklisted sites for implementing techniques to help
improve site accessibility it would make a nice little lawsuit.

That presents interesting issues regarding the extent of google's legal
duties, if any, to the public or to websites where no contractual fees
have been paid for its services, but in the final analysis, who could
afford to prosecute such a suit? Not me. The government, maybe, and
that's another can of worms.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
474,082
Messages
2,570,589
Members
47,211
Latest member
Shamestone

Latest Threads

Top