W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > February 2011

I feel that the 2 sufficient techniques should be 'and' not 'or'.

From: <noreply@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:58:50 +0000
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PqwhO-00037B-BQ@stu.w3.org>

Name: Sheena McCullagh
Email: sheena.mccullagh@blueyonder.co.uk
Affiliation: Individual
Document: W2
Item Number: Success Criterion 2.4.1
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: technical
Summary of Issue: I feel that the 2 sufficient techniques should be 'and' not 'or'.
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
I had originally read this that 1 and 2 were exactly that an 'and', then someone I know who does accessibility testing for a living, pointed out to me that I was wrong. They are not 'and', ie you can do one or the other.  However I see a problem with that:

Skip links are of main benefit to sighted users who navigate via the keyboard and are of only very limited benefit to screen reader users.  However H69 (heading elements) is only of use to screen readers and provides no help whatsoever for sighted users navigating via the keyboard. (I don't know enough about map, frame and scripting to comment on those, but as they have been grouped with H69, I suspect that they too are of little or no benefit to sighted people who navigate with the keyboard.)

Nonetheless, if someone writes a web page to H69, they would be deemed to have passed SC 2.4.1, even though they have not provided any method for sighted keyboard users to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple pages.  The most number of hits of the tab key that I counted before getting to the main page content on one web site was 69 each time I went onto a new page.

Proposed Change:
Please make it 'and' so that both sighted keyboard users and screen reader users are helped.  At the moment it's perfectly possible to help only one of those groups and not help the other and still pass this SC.
Received on Saturday, 19 February 2011 23:58:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:31 GMT