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

Re: SC 2.4.4 and 2.4.8

From: Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 12:56:31 +0900
Message-ID: <29e2613a0609072056u1c164884x9fe7b65189e90895@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lguarino@adobe.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Hi Loretta and all,

<blockquote>
> I'm assuming that for HTML, we agree that the only acceptable context
> that can be added to the link text is
> * title attribute
> * enclosing sentence
> * enclosing paragraph
> * enclosing list item
> * enclosing table cell, plus the headers for that table cell
>
> (Note that this excludes "preceding heading element".)
</blockquote>

My concern is that the most of Japanese screen readers can't provide
these kinds of context. I'm wondering if the screen readers in the
other languages than English also can associate the link text with
these context.

The WG would say that it is an user agent issue?? If so, the reality
is that the Japanese users would be confused with the multiple links
on a web page such as "Here!", "Click here!" and so on. JIS doesn't
allow the authors to use such link text. For the Japanese users, I'd
like to remove 2.4.4 and move 2.4.8 to L2.


2006/9/8, Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>:
>
> I'd like to get more feedback on SC 2.4.4 and SC 2.4.8 before drafting
> another proposal. Based on today's discussion, I see several options for
> these SC.
>
> We need to word SC 2.4.4 so that
> * the SC is suitably technology independent,
> * there is high inter-rater reliability in determining which other text
> on the page can be combined with the link text to determine its purpose.
> * there is enough clarity that User Agent developers could implement
> support for indicating when different contexts are available for a link
> and for providing a way of retrieving the context.
>
> I'm assuming that for HTML, we agree that the only acceptable context
> that can be added to the link text is
> * title attribute
> * enclosing sentence
> * enclosing paragraph
> * enclosing list item
> * enclosing table cell, plus the headers for that table cell
>
> (Note that this excludes "preceding heading element".)
>
> I also assume that the "link text" for an image is its alt attribute.
>
> SC 2.4.4, Option A: The purpose of each link can be determined from the
> link text, the link's supplemental and alternative text, and the text of
> any enclosing sentence, paragraph, data table cell with its associated
> headers, or list item.
>
> SC 2.4.4, Option B: The purpose of each link can be determined from the
> link text and its context.
>
> SC 2.4.4, Option C: The purpose of each link can be determined from the
> link text and its immediate context.
>
> SC 2.4.4, Option D: The purpose of each link can be determined from the
> link text and its programmatically determined context.
>
> For Options B, C and D, do we need a glossary definition for "context",
> "immediate context" or "programmatically determined context"? (I think
> so, but it is open for discussion.)
>
> Some dictionary definitions for context are:
> * The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or
> passage and determines its meaning
> * the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event,
> situation, etc; a setting
> * The parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a
> specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect
> * discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its
> interpretation
> * That which surrounds, and gives meaning to, something else
>
> The challenge is to define context without making the definition depend
> upon "that which gives meaning", since then the SC would be impossible
> to fail.
>
> I worry that if we can't define what qualifies as context clearly
> enough, this SC isn't viable. "Programmatically determined" attempts to
> tap into the need for user agent support. However, we know that current
> user agent support for context is pretty poor, and if we rely on that as
> our definition of context, the difference between 2.4.4 and 2.4.8 may
> not be worth the confusion introduced by having two different SC.
>
>
> For SC 2.4.8, the issue is whether content other than the link text can
> be considered in determining the purpose of the link, e.g., title
> attributes. (Option B corresponds to what a user would get in a list of
> links for the Web unit.)
>
> SC 2.4.8, Option A: The purpose of each link can be determined by the
> user from link text, including supplemental and alternative text.
>
> SC 2.4.8, Option B: The purpose of each link can be determined by the
> user from link text.
>
> Loretta Guarino Reid
> lguarino@adobe.com
> Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 8 September 2006 03:56:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:46 GMT