Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
>
> Very interesting and very unconvincing. For one, HR can be styled, so
> not too much problem for today's ultra-cool graphic interface. As for
> "Accessibility" I am really interested how HR helps it, and how it is
> rendered in non visual browsers, and is this the best way of doing
> it.
Last time I checked (and it *was* a while ago), styling the <hr /> is not
that satisfying an experience - as I recall it required a fair bit of junk
code to render satisfactory "design" aesthetics - but I can be corrected
here if I am wrong. But you have hit on a key point - non-visual browsers.
Since the <hr /> *is* a page element, it is announced and rendered as such -
it is a Horizontal Rule - or break, in just about every user-agent known to
mankind; it is one of the most basic of HTML constructs. There is a reason
*why* you as a page author/content creator wants that "line/division/break"
on screen - I mean it's not just there on a whim is it? And so, ensuring
that the "intent" carries through to alternative user-agents is a goal of
Universal Accessibility. We have the HTML "tool" to do this - the <hr /> -
yes, it's ugly, yes' it's limiting, but, yes, it has more *meaning* than
<img src="linebreak.gif" alt="" />.
>
>
> Ok, how about this improvement - give the section which must be
> separated from the previous one some meaningful header, but hide it
> with CSS, rendering only visual separator, like line, three stars,
> whatever.
If inserting a meaningful Heading at that point in you content is
appropriate, then this is good (but why would you hide it from some, and not
others? Would not the meaningful header also be of aid/assistance to those
with cognitive load issues, those with lower comprehension or literacy
skills - perhaps ESL?). However, again, I will ask: if you are using the
image to convey *any* kind of meaning what-so-ever, how are you conveying
this meaning to alternative user-agents. It also means you must ask
yourself if there *is* a meaning to the break image (I submit that there
probably is) or is it really just eye-candy. If it is being used at the
bottom of a page/document then the argument for eye-candy would find
credence - if it is inserted into the "middle" of your content then that
would be a harder argument to make.
**********
Meanwhile, Rob Kirton wrote:
> From where i am sitting a <div> causes a nice logical break as much as
> <hr> (without needing to use one) and the top / or bottom border can be
> styled to appear like a horizontal rule if required.
Except Rob, Adaptive Technology does not explicitly announce <divs>, as
while they add structure, they have no inherent semantic meaning, which the
<hr /> does. You may be able to style your div to visually render
separation of content, but that visual rendering does not carry through to
non-visual browsers:
div.top {border-bottom: 1px red dotted;}
...means absolutely nothing to a screen reader.
And so again, my question/challenge remains - if you are adding a visual
information clue to your content how are you extending that information to
non-visual user agents?
JF
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
