W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: SC 2.4.5: links in context

From: Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. - <ueki@infoaxia.co.jp>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 02:55:16 +0900
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060225020552.DA46.UEKI@infoaxia.co.jp>

Hi John,

Here are my comments for your reports and questions.

> (1) Do the instances I describe actually pass SC 2.4.5 *as it is
> currently written*?

No, they don't.

> (2) If you think they fail the SC *as currently written*, how would you
> explain why they fail?

Because they are not "text describing the destination" as written in SC
2.4.5. Additionaly, they don't address the intent of the SC which says
"The intent of this success criterion is to help users know where a link
goes, so they can decide whether they want to navigate there." These
links don't help users to do it.

They can be accessible as the users can understand where these links
would go even though it would take longer time for them to "decide
whether they want to navigate there." In my opinion, however, I don't
think that WCAG should recommend "accessible, but not usable" things to
the authors. WCAG is really influential guidelines all over the world.
If we admit these ambiguous links, there can be many web pages with a
number of "more...", "click here", "here", and so on. The users would
have trouble navigating web pages. I don't think this is what we want.

If the author want to use "more..." or "click here" as a link text, we
should recommend to add the title attribute describing the destination
so that the screen readers could provide the additional information to
the users.


Cheers,
Makoto


On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:33:04 -0600
"John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:

>  <<link_context_and_SC2.4.5.mht>> Hello,
> 
> In our discussions of SC 2.4.5, I've taken a strong position in favor of
> requiring programmatic association of links with text describing the
> link destination. Others hae taken equally strong position that
> programmatic association should not be required. This past weekend I did
> some personal investigation (not formal research) to see if I could find
> some concrete information that might help us address the problem wisely.
> 
> The results are in the attached document (MS Word saved as "filtered"
> HTML, then as a "complete archive with a .mht extension)). Basically it
> describes how I went about identifying the context for ambiguous link
> text on several different pages. In each case, I believe our current
> wording of SC 2.4.5 would allow the link text as it appears in the pages
> I visited (though the pages may fail other SC). 
> 
> The questions are:
> (1) Do the instances I describe actually pass SC 2.4.5 *as it is
> currently written*?
> (2) If you think they fail the SC *as currently written*, how would you
> explain why they fail?
> (3) If you think the instances *pass* the SC *as currently written*, do
> you think the SC itself is OK as written, or should "programmatically
> associated" descriptions be required? (That is, should we rewrite the SC
> so that the instances in the attached document would fail)?
> 
> I know everyone's busy. But I'd appreciate any feedback, and I hope this
> helps us figure out either better wording for the SC itself or a more
> sharply defined sufficient technique.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
> "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/
> 
> 
>  

<以下、署名>
-- 
株式会社インフォアクシア 
植木 真 <ueki@infoaxia.co.jp>

TEL:0422-76-8515   FAX:0422-76-8515

Infoaxia, Inc.  - Solutions for Web Accessibility -
http://www.infoaxia.co.jp/
--------------------------------------------------------
Webアクセシビリティのポータルサイト
Infoaxia - Everything for Your Awareness and Practice -
http://www.infoaxia.com/
Received on Friday, 24 February 2006 17:55:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:42 GMT