RE: Techniques revision - Meaningful link names

Thanks Kynn

I liked your talk at CSUN by the way. Your post says: 

"If we say that document structure is important and you must use it, and
then we say that ALSO the page must be usable WITHOUT structure,
we are asking an awful lot."  

I don't think blind users are saying the page should be usable without
structure.  They are simply saying that they find being able to scan lists
of links helpful.  They are grateful that structure is being introduced into
many sites and find it to be a great leap forward in accessibility but they
consider that as something distinct.  

As a sighted person I can scan a document, and quickly figure out the
context of each link.  A blind person finds the context when they hit the
Headings dialogue box but they currently don't see the links that are under
those headings in the same dialogue box.  So they do not have the same
contextual advantage as me.  What helps them compensate is being able to
bring up a separate box of links that says more than "buy it", "more info",
"Click here" etc.  

The other point that screen reader user Harry Monk brought forward was that
although we are seeing the beginnings of the introduction of Headers into
web sites, the vast majority still don't use them.

Perhaps in the future, Screen Readers may want to introduce a dialogue box
where all the headings are listed with the LINKS that are under those
headings in the same dialogue box.  Then I would be more inclined to believe
that blind people could quickly establish the context of each link without
meaningful link names.

In WCAG 1.0 Web Masters were required to structure the document properly.
(Section 3.5 - although it was not as well articulated as it will be in WCAG
2.0) AND have meaningful links (13.1) I don't see how we are being over
demanding by saying they should still make links meaningful.

If blind users report to us that they do not require the links dialogue box
anymore because the Headings dialogue box satisfies all their needs, then I
would agree that we should deprecate the requirement.  That's not what I'm
hearing.  I'll be interested to find out what others are hearing.


=========================
 
Access Empowers People...
       ...Barriers Disable Them
 
        www.eramp.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Kynn Bartlett [mailto:kynn@idyllmtn.com] 
Sent: August 6, 2003 5:29 PM
To: David MacDonald
Cc: 'Ben Caldwell'; michaelc@watchfire.com; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org


On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 10:58 AM, David MacDonald wrote:
> So I recommend that we not justify any use ambiguous link names.

Kibitzing:

Such a requirement basically says that all links must make sense
when taken out of context -- this is a bad thing if we are also
emphasizing the importance of structure in documents.  If we say
that document structure is important and you must use it, and
then we say that ALSO the page must be usable WITHOUT structure,
we are asking an awful lot.

Something like this:

      <section>
        <h>Teach Yourself CSS in 24 Hours</h>
        <p>Blah blah blah</p>
        <p><a href="http://amazon.example.com/blahblah">Buy it!</a></p>
      </section>

...is not ambiguous.  From context, it makes perfect sense what is
being presented here.  Likewise:

      <dl>
        <dt>Kynn Bartlett</dt>
        <dd><a href="mailto:kynn@idyllmtn.com">Email</a>,
            <a href="http://kynn.com/">Website</a></dd>
        <dt>David MacDonald</dt>
        <dd><a href="mailto:befree@magma.ca">Email</a>
      </dl>

...is not ambiguous either.  In both cases, the context provides meaning
to the link.  Removing the context -- as assistive technologies have
been doing -- is not a proper solution for accessibility's sake.  In
fact, it is a practice which is harmful to accessibility.

Constructing an outline based on headings is a good thing.  Constructing
such an outline and then adding links in is also a good thing.  Even
providing a straight list of links is reasonable, although not 
particularly
useful since context is removed.  However, Web developers should not
be required to support this third option -- a flat list of links titles 
--
because that is not how markup is meant to function.

Sometimes, context can be removed.  Other times it cannot.  The heading
tags (<h1> ... <h6> or <h>) are designed to be able to abstract document
structure in such a manner.  The <a> tag is most definitely not built
this way, at least when it comes to href links.  (A list of ANCHORS,
formed with <a name>, on the other hand, is a good idea -- and such
anchors should probably have title attributes attached.  Sadly, though,
this is not currently supported by user agents, is it?)

I caution you to very seriously reconsider the notion of requiring
pages to "make sense" with vital context -- including accessibility
elements and attributes -- removed from the presentation (as with lists
of links).  Such a practice is ultimately harmful to the cause of
accessibility because (a) it can result in poor UI design, (b) it
can result in rejection of accessibility by informed Web developers,
(c) it encourages a practice which goes against the idea of structured
markup, and (d) it does not encourage the assistive technology
vendors to improve their abilities to generate document abstracts.

--Kynn

--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                     http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain                http://idyllmtn.com
Author, CSS in 24 Hours                       http://cssin24hours.com
Inland Anti-Empire Blog                      http://blog.kynn.com/iae
Shock & Awe Blog                           http://blog.kynn.com/shock

Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 15:50:02 UTC