W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2004

RE: techniques for understandable content

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:45:23 -0600
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B29044A@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Excuse me, Joe, but it wasn't Lisa or anyone at ubaccess who advocated
putting links at the end of the sentence or paragraph. 


"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Clark
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 12:21 pm
To: WAI-GL
Subject: RE: techniques for understandable content



> Lisa, thank you! I have been counting on you to help out with this 
> important challenge,

Well, there's your first problem.

> Another question, this time about SWAP or other tools from Ubaccess. 
> Is
> it possible for WAP to gather up links that are embedded within main 
> content (for example within a sentence in the middle of a paragraph)
and 
> move them to the end of the paragraph or section? I'm asking because a

> comment from WWAAC suggests a requirement that links be placed at the 
> end of paragraphs or document sections rather than embedding them in 
> content.

And here we have further evidence that self-proclaimed LD advocates want

to overthrow the Web as we know it. Inline links are permitted by spec 
*and by design*. I'm just wondering how many people with dyslexia or 
or other cognitive impairment would find it easier to read an entire 
article and then somehow have to remember what the <a>links</a> at the 
bottom refer to rather than just hitting the link in context. I thought 
context was important?

> I understand the rationale but am afraid that such a requirement would
> meet with very strong resistance.

Because the rationale is bullshit and is inimical to the Web.

I did a quickie test. <http://UBAccess.com/> has six inline links 
including the top navbar. If you want a narrower definition, I found one

link embedded in a sentence.

I checked the page for the first product link on the page, UB for 
Enterprise <http://www.ubaccess.com/corporate.html>, and found five
inline 
links outside the top navbar. I followed all five of those links and 
counted a total of 13 inline links exclusive of top navbar (and ignoring

the fact that one of the five links 404s).

Is there some dogfood that needs to be eaten here?

At some point somebody on the Working Group is going to stand up to the 
nonsensical and often bullying LD advocates, whose proposals are
typically 
unworkable and contemptuous of the actual Web while additionally
providing 
no provable accessibility benefit whatsoever for people with cognitive 
disabilities.

> -----Original Message-----

Top-posting isn't accessible to anyone.

> ----- Original Message -----

Double top-posting is even worse.

>>> -----Original Message-----

And indeed what does triple top-posting tell you about the basic 
competence of the authors?

>>> ----- Original Message -----

At the quadruple-top-posting stage, you know you're not dealing with 
somebody who takes this medium seriously.

-- 

     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
     Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 19:45:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:32 GMT