ehalf Of Matthew
PennellSent: Monday, July 03, 2006 12:31 PMTo:
wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: Re: [WSG] Access Keys and large
sites
On 7/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Patrick,In
the same way, accessibility in general is always less of an
On 7/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Patrick,In the same way, accessibility in general is always less of an issue on
an Intranet, as you only need to worry about actual problems with yoursite/UA combination, not all potential problems with all possiblecombinations.And presumably
ation, not all potential problems with all possible
combinations.
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:54 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well if no-one else is going to say it, then I will have to:
Don't use Access Keys except on an Intranet site.
And why would an intranet warrant different treatment from any other web
content?
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
Well if no-one else is going to say it, then I will have to:
Don't use Access Keys except on an Intranet site.
IF you do a quick Google search for 'Access Keys' and 'Bad' you should find
several articles which have researched the number of such keys that do not
clash with a Browser, OS or AT fu
Cole Kuryakin wrote:
Hello All -
I'm pretty new to the whole accessibility thing but I'm trying.
The latest question mark that arose in my mind regards to access keys: since
there's only 10 numeric keys (including "0") what does one do if you're
building a site that exceeds 10 pages? The one I'
The latest question mark that arose in my mind regards to access keys: since
there's only 10 numeric keys (including "0") what does one do if you're
building a site that exceeds 10 pages? The one I'm working on now looks like
it's going to top-out at over 50 pages with some sections containing 2
d
