Re: [IUG] Remove Cancel All Button

["Bollinger,Stephen" <bollingers at cadl dot org>]

Except that there are (or at least were) people who use a simple setup
of screen reading software with Lynx, and as far as I know Lynx does not
pay attention to stylesheets at all.  This would mean that your second
method would be better than display:none (and using the SUPPRESS_OPTION
would still be the best thing if you don't want anybody at all to see a
BUT_ WWWOption).  I wonder if SUPPRESS_OPTION works with the newer ICON_
WWWOptions?

Does anybody know any rough numbers about how many people are still
using the Lynx/screen reader combination?  I'm wondering if it's worth
worrying about anymore.

Yours, 
-Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org
[mailto:innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org] On Behalf Of Tyson Tate
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 6:09 PM
To: IUG INNOPAC List
Subject: Re: [IUG] Remove Cancel All Button

On May 16, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Bollinger,Stephen wrote:

> Wow, I think this is the best possible solution.  Wish I had thought 
> of it before all that work.  Better than my or Tyson's option, since 
> it doesn't rely on a hack that might break and it will not mess with 
> accessibility issues.
>
> Yours,
> -Steve


For the record, adding "display: none" to an element raises no
accessibility issues, at least in terms of screen-readers. All major
screen-readers discard elements that have a 'none" display type and do
not read them, just as a sighted person would not see them.

If you wanted an element to be hidden visually but read in a screen-
reader, you could do this:

style="position:absolute;width:0;height:0;text-indent:-9999em;"

Just for the record, anyways. :)

-Tyson


--
Tyson Tate
Web Developer
Robert E. Kennedy Library
Cal Poly University


--
This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC
list
Public replies:  INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org
Update your subscription options:
http://innopacusers.org/mailman/listinfo/innopac