Re: adjacent multiple image links

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. <
makoto.ueki@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Loretta,
>
> We'd like to get the official answer from WCAG working group on this issue.
>
> Our understanding was that CASE 1 and 3 would not meet SC 1.1.1
> because H2 technique is not used. If this is not true, we'll have to
> revise our criterion.
>
> Could you confirm that the official answer from WCAG working group
> would be the same?
>
>
> - Makoto
>
> ================================
Response from the Working Group
================================

Makoto asks: Do you mean that the following case would meet SC 1.1.1, 2.4.4
and 2.4.9?

CASE 1:
<p>
<a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx.png" alt="WCAG 2.0"></a>
<a href="xxx.html>WCAG 2.0</a>
</p>

CASE 2:
<p>
<a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx.png" alt=""></a>
<a href="xxx.html>WCAG 2.0</a>
</p>

CASE 3:
<p>
<a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx01.png" alt="WCAG 2.0"></a>
<a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx02.png" alt="WCAG 2.0"></a>
</p>

CASE 4:
<p>
<a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx01.png" alt="WCAG 2.0"></a>
<a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx02.png" alt=""></a>
</p>


Case 1: The first link meets SC 1.1.1 using H37: Using alt attributes on
img elements. It meets SC 2.4.4 and 2.4.9 using H30: Providing link text
that describes the purpose of a link for anchor elements.

Case 2: The first link fails 1.1.1, since there is no text alternative for
the image.

Case 3: Both links meet SC 1.1.1 using H37: Using alt attributes on img
elements. They meet SC 2.4.4 and 2.4.9 using H30: Providing link text that
describes the purpose of a link for anchor elements.

Case 4: The second link fails 1.1.1, since there is no text alternative for
the image.

Regarding redundancy of the links in the cases above, there is no WCAG
requirement to avoid redundancy. It is only advisory.


Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact


On behalf of the WCAG Working Group