W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Technique Reducing The Need For In-Your-Face URLs

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:54:12 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010118185412.007aa6c0@apembert.pop.crosslink.net>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Wendy,

	As I considered your addition to techniques, I thought about the web page
that the 2nd graders are now using pretty regularly in the lab
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45 ... some of the links go to old stuff,
and two pages that the students use (Thanksgiving and Halloween) were pages
used in print and just converted to html and hung on the web ... the links
are all "in your face" URL's, and many kids avoid these pages and use only
the newer ones for King and Israel ... (it may be that kids who use the
Internet at home and are used to "clicking on the underlined blue letters"
are more adventuresome) ... Links of one or two words are easier for young
children (perhaps CD and LD folks, even ordinary folks) to navigate ... 

	There is an easy "technique" to do it in Front Page, perhaps other
authoring tools - 1) pull up page in Front Page, minimize 2) Pull up IE; 3)
go the the target site; 4) copy address from window; minimize IE; 5) paste
address to desired place in page, press enter; 6) move cursor to somewhere
inside address now in link color and underlined; 7) Insert words for link;
8) delete the original link before and after the inserted words. ....
(Words for link can be the title of the page, the site, or the type of
activity, etc. whatever suits the surrounding page ...)

						Anne

 

					Anne


At 03:18 PM 1/18/01 -0500, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>Trying to resolve this thread...
>
>In WCAG 1.0 this relates to checkpoint 13.1 - Clearly identify the target 
>of each link. [Priority 2].  Techniques are discussed in the section 6.1 
>Link text of the HTML Techniques for WCAG [1]
>
>In WCAG 2.0 this has been wrapped into checkpoint 2.1 Provide consistent 
>interaction behaviors and navigation mechanisms.
>
>I think in the techniques we can write more about "consistency" of 
>navigation mechanisms (such as links) and one of the recommendations that 
>we think should be consistent is only using "in your face URLs" in cases as 
>have been described in this thread - in footnotes when the page will be 
>printed, when specifically identifying a web site for someone to read 
>(again, usually for printing or presentation/discussion purposes), etc.
>
>Therefore, for the time being I propose adding something to section 6.1 of 
>the HTML Techniques for WCAG.  This eventually should appear in the Core 
>Techniques as it applies across languages - but for something to quickly 
>point to and something that 's easy to change how is that for a first stab?
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#link-text
>[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#consistent-behaviors
>
>--wendy
>
>At 10:21 AM 1/18/01 , Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>> > reading something on a web page and then wanting to email
>> > it to you, so I copy-and-paste and send it to you.  The links
>> > will be lost during that process.
>>
>>Good point. I wonder if in the future there will be different kinds of
>>copying mechanisms: copying media and converting it into text form? For
>>example, if I select a Web page, and copy the text, it should convert the
>><img alt=""> to their alt attributes, and <a href=""> to their href
>>attributes... Maybe AU would be interested in that?
>>
>> > Printability is one of the primary reasons for this;
>>
>>That's always the major reason. Even in 5/10 years time when CSS is more
>>generally accepted, I don't think there will be many changes. People will
>>still feel the need to have in-your-face URL's because of the "pre-CSS
>>browsers"... and that is a problem. If 99% of people haven't got a gimmick
>>that makes pages more accessible, do you have to provide fallback
>>mechanisms for those 1%, and cause problems for the 99%? The answer appears
>>to be yes...
>>
>> > Stylistically, I think inline "in your face" URLs are generally
>> > nasty unless they specify a simple site address, such as
>> > "the W3C's WAI (www.w3.org)".  [Yes, I know that's a machine
>> > name, not a URI,
>>
>>Well, it's a domain name. Yes, they are generally accepted, and most
>>browsers will take them if you type those in... but what if one didn't? Oh,
>>and I think you might want the (www.w3.org) after the "W3C" not the "WAI"?
>>
>> > If a URL is going to be directly stated, I feel it should be
>> > given by itself, and not inline;
>>
>>Yes, or as a reference at the foot of the email. Maybe we should have a
>>techniques document for plain text :-)
>>
>>Kindest Regards,
>>Sean B. Palmer
>>@prefix : <http://infomesh.net/2001/01/n3terms/#> .
>>[ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] has :homepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .
>
>--
>wendy a chisholm
>world wide web consortium
>web accessibility initiative
>madison, wi usa
>tel: +1 608 663 6346
>/--
>
>
Received on Thursday, 18 January 2001 19:10:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT