W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > February 2000

RE: New technique: Technique 13.1.1 [priority 2] Verify that the target of each link is clearly identified.

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:18:10 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000222171729.00bf3450@localhost>
To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
I added the following sentence to the repair:
"If the author is trying to make a Level Triple A site, Ask the author to 
provide supplemental information about the link in the "title" attribute."

I also added the reference that Michael gave to the list of resources for 
this technique.
--w

At 11:02 PM 2/5/00 , Harvey Bingham wrote:
>At 2000-02-01 10:27-0500, Michael Cooper wrote:
>>What's here looks good. I'd still advocate the check for TITLE attributes of
>>links. Here's my thinking -
>>
>>I never understood what possible reason there would be to have them (I
>>thought HTML 4 was just being thorough) until I heard a presentation[1] at a
>>conference last year. The presentor, based at the University of Manchester,
>>had been doing research into the experience of visually impaired people
>>compared to non-visually impaired people, and come up with the notion of the
>>importance of "previewing" that sighted people take for granted. The
>>suggestion was that the TITLE attribute of links can provide more detailed
>>information about what's there than is actually in the link text (which of
>>course still needs to be good) and help a user decide whether to follow the
>>link.
>This may apply with higher priority to external than internal links, since
>the cost for the latter traversal and return is minimal. Suggest external P2,
>internal P3.
>
>>This is a major benefit to users with screen readers who might otherwise
>>follow a link, have to deal with all the navigation stuff at the top etc.
>>before they get to the content and discover the page isn't relevant. It also
>>helps people who don't want to wait for the download or who read slowly and
>>might take time to discover that the page doesn't have what they were
>>looking for.
>
>Excellent reason. Thanks for making me aware of its advantages.
>
>>...
>>Michael
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org
>> > [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Wendy A Chisholm
>> > Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 6:58 PM
>> > To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
>> > Subject: New technique: Technique 13.1.1 [priority 2] Verify that the
>> > target of each link is clearly identified.
>> >
>> >
>> > Michael wrote:
>> > <blockquote>
>> > Checkpoint 13.1 - Clearly identify the target of each link
>> > New Technique: check for common bad link phrases such as "click here".
>> > New Technique: check for validated TITLE attribute of link.
>> > </blockquote>
>> >
>> > I propose:
>> > <blockquote>
>> > Technique 13.1.1 [priority 2] Verify that the target of each link is
>> > clearly identified.
>> > Discussion Status:
>> > awaiting discussion
>> > Evaluation:
>> > Check for commonly used non-meaningful phrases such as "click here" and
>> > "more" as link text.
>> > Check that if link text is not unique, duplicates link to the same place.
>> > Example Language:
>> > Link text should be meaningful enough to make sense when read out of
>> > context -- either on its own or as part of a sequence of links. Link text
>> > should also be terse.
>> > Repair Technique:
>> > Retrieve the TITLE of the target page and suggest that as link text.
>
>Presumably this would be done in its absence as a title="value" attribute
>that is offering the reference link.
>
>> > </blockquote>
>> > --
>> > wendy a chisholm
>
>Regards/Harvey Bingham

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2000 17:13:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:34 GMT