Previous Message
Next Message

What do screen readers really say?

Sent by Joe Clark on 12 September 2003 04:04

>Well, if hiding a link by coloring the text the same as the= 
>background keeps you out, then we can't use this technique= either. 
>This is not a sarcastic remark, it is an acknowledgement= that 
>although this technique may be "visible" to screen readers,= it is 
>invisible to the sighted who may wish to use it. I am= surprised 
>that you did not take a stronger stance and say, "No,= I can't use 
>it". However, your small text technique does not= comply with Joe 
>Clark's recommendation (according to another on= this list) which 
>was to suggest large text.

>From: Curtis Clark
>If I remember correctly (the text of the book is on the web, at 
>, the idea is that it should be large enough that you 
>notice it and can tell when you've tabbed to it, which IMO would 
>rule out 8px text, or #eeeeee on white, but perhaps not text that 
>would be annoyingly small if you had to read a paragraph of it.

The actual recommendations:


Yes, skip-navigation links should be visible. They don't have to be 
big. You could, if necessary, use an icon, but I wouldn't.

>From: Bob Easton [EMAIL-REMOVED]>
>So could access keys, and many accessibility experts recommend using 
>them. However, Joe is not too keen about them (pp164-172). Even 
>though he characterizes using accesskeys as "building for a future 
>utopia," they are becoming more popular and there is even a 
>convention arising.



     Joe Clark | [EMAIL-REMOVED]
     Accessibility <>
     Expect criticism if you top-post
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
Supported by --
Previous Message
Next Message

Possibly related: