W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > February 2012

Re: adjacent multiple image links

From: Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. <makoto.ueki@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 04:23:59 +0900
Message-ID: <CAF9hGuYVuYDv2V_y877Du+COEC16RAxZ-4JQBC+0MsDUYL5XuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
I really appreciate all your help.

I'd like to ask you an additional question.

Should the link text be the same to meet SC 3.2.4 if they are the
links for the same resource?
Please see the CASE 1-2 and 3-2 below. Do they meet SC 3.2.4?

> 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 1-2:
<p>
<a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx.png" alt="WCAG 2.0"></a>
<a href="xxx.html>About 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 3-2:
<p>
<a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx01.png" alt="WCAG 2.0"></a>
<a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx02.png" alt="About WCAG 2.0"></a>
</p>


2012/2/24 Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>:
> 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
>
Received on Saturday, 25 February 2012 19:24:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 25 February 2012 19:24:27 GMT