Katrina wrote:
Your post really reminded me of an older post that talked about this:
http://www.usability.com.au/resources/ozewai2005/
May I asked which automated accessibility test?
Hope that helps.
Kat
http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu/ - it's pretty good generally, but as with all
automated tools it is only really a tick box. Validity for pseudo-human
readability if you will.
That link of yours is pretty good. The source order debate is one worth
having again and again - although I think the writer puts too much faith
in what people have come to expect (which is varied and incongruous
enough) and not enough in what people might want.
Superfluous headings: Sure, repeated information of any kind is
irritating. But whenever I see 'Site Navigation:', I can't help but feel
it's incredibly inane.
Incidentally, I did not fail absolutely on that particular criteria -
the site in question has the first two levels of navigation in separate
columns on the left, while the third level takes the shape of an inline
ul right-aligned at the top of the main content... Because of possible
ambiguity what with the different format, this is headed <h3>Inside
<span>[section name]</span>:</h3>. In that instance I think it's
forgivable, and necessary, because it rests inside different block
elements, and for users with CSS and a visual display, the semantics of
position may confuse. Otherwise I think there's no confusion over a list
of links (provided they have conventional text) being a navigation tool
of some kind, and the general one need not be labeled.
Regards,
Barney
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
