W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: AW: link text 2.4.4

From: adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:26:47 +0200
Message-ID: <CALKv3=hMCmvmpEx4uO+MMWpfsWPTPrdGRz=VF357o6K6ak3zyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
Cc: WCAG-WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I don't have a really good answer for that one other than to say that the
techniques are not normative, but it looks like text and not title may very
well be required. I think we should bring this up as a discussion in a
group meeting and come to a clear decision. As soon as the edit draft is
approved and out of the way, I will suggest this as a topic.

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>wrote:

> Adam,
> The 'How to' doc for SC 2.4.4 says:
> H33: Supplementing link text with the title attribute
> is sufficient. So without linked text it may not pass. Is text in a CSS
> img linked text? AsI believe it will then fail SC 1.1.1 due to F3.
> On the whole it will fail.
> Sailesh
>
> --- On Thu, 12/1/11, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: AW: link text 2.4.4
> To: adam.solomon2@gmail.com, "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <
> lorettaguarino@google.com>, "Kerstin Probiesch" <
> k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
> Cc: "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Date: Thursday, December 1, 2011, 9:35 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It is a failure as per F3 as content is NA when CSS is off so only title
> will not suffice... maybe it passes 2.4.4 because link has title (i.e.
> name)  as per H91 but not 1.1.1.
> Sailesh
>
>
> --- On Thu, 12/1/11, Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
> Subject: AW: link text 2.4.4
> To: adam.solomon2@gmail.com, "'Sailesh Panchang'" <spanchang02@yahoo.com>,
> "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
> Cc: "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Date: Thursday, December 1, 2011, 5:11 AM
>
>
> Thanks for this important discussion. Some cents:
>
> According to the Spec the title-Attribute "offers advisory information
> about the element for which it is set." When using it for providing very
> central information (target of a link) it might be a misuse of the
> attribute. One could say: but alt-attribute is not possible. But one could
> also ask if there are any situations where it is absolutely necessary to
> use CSS images and could justify this workaround. Thoughts?
>
> When working with own color schemes those images disappears (F3). Some
> users describing the situation like this: hunting for Easter eggs without
> even knowing if there are any. In the first step the user has to know that
> there are CSS image links and in the next and worst case he has to hunt for
> them with moving the mouse all over the viewport. If the user was
> successful he sees the target of the link (title-attribute). If he is not
> successful he probably missed an important information. So the availability
> is for a mouse user theoretically given but it depends on the luck or trial
> and error (and the time). When using own color schemes and the keyboard,
> the user has nearly no chance - as long as not JS is used. It's very closed
> to the situation of a blind user when there is neither an alt- nor a
> title-attribute. The more extensive CSS image is used the more critical it
> is. I've flickred a screenshot here (a German B2B Site):
> http://is.gd/rZIbMD. On the
>  left side with default colors and on the right side with own color
> scheme. Because of the border the user will have the idea that there must
> be "something" (title-attributes are given). Now the user has to move the
> mouse over this part of page to find out, if there is something. Because of
> the border the user might think that there is nothing below. There are a
> lot of same problems on this page: different types of green circles for
> messages (read, unread) as CSS-images, CSS-images for deleting and
> answering. Of course not all pages are like this and sometimes it is "just"
> one image (logo), but those users won't know it.
>
> Because of that and what is written in the Spec I'm quite unsure if the
> title-attribute is really sufficient for 1.1.1.
>
> Best
>
> Kerstin
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Adam Solomon [mailto:adam.solomon2@gmail.com]
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. November 2011 22:39
> > An: 'Sailesh Panchang'; 'Loretta Guarino Reid'
> > Cc: 'WCAG'
> > Betreff: RE: link text 2.4.4
> >
> > Goof point - F3 in the test procedure states:
> > "If an image does convey important information, the information is
> > provided to assistive technologies and is also available when the CSS
> > image is not displayed."
> > Sounds like the title attribute for a link would not constitute
> > "availability" when the image is not displayed. Yet, as Loretta pointed
> > out (if I understood her correctly), a title attribute might satisfy
> > 1.1.1 because of the form control clause, which states that:
> > "If non-text content is a control or accepts user input, then it has a
> > name that describes its purpose."
> > In http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20101014/H91 we find
> > that the name for a link can be its text, or its title attribute. So, I
> > think it possible that the title attribute would suffice for 1.1.1 if
> > we apply a liberal meaning to the success criterion.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sailesh Panchang [mailto:spanchang02@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 8:18 PM
> > To: 'Loretta Guarino Reid'; adam.solomon2@gmail.com
> > Cc: 'WCAG'
> > Subject: RE: link text 2.4.4
> >
> > Does 'linked text'   include CSS rendered images ... is that covered by
> > intent  of SC 2.4.4?
> > It is also a SC 1.1.1 failure : see F3.
> > Sailesh
> >
> > --- On Tue, 11/29/11, Adam Solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Adam Solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>
> > Subject: RE: link text 2.4.4
> > To: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
> > Cc: "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> > Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2011, 12:26 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > So really, for 2.4.4, which requires “The purpose of each link can be
> > determined from the link text alone or from the link text together with
> > its programmatically determined link context”,  the background-image of
> > text would be called the “text” for link purpose, and the title would
> > be providing the programmatic name for the link. Thus, no violation,
> > but nonetheless a bad practice at best.
> >
> >
> > From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 6:03 PM
> > To: adam solomon
> > Cc: WCAG
> > Subject: Re: link text 2.4.4
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20101014/H65 is the nearest
> > sufficient technique listed for SC 1.1.1. The use of the title
> > attribute generally comes with lots of User Agent Notes, since user
> > agent support for title is problematic for low vision and motor
> > impaired users.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:37 AM, adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > So, since according to http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-
> > 20101014/H91 the name for an anchor tag can be in the title attribute,
> > my example would not violate wcag.
> > With regard to the point Detlev made about custom stylesheets or
> > schemes, is this a violation or a best practice?
> > Jon: the example I have is actually a link, but your point is well
> > taken, and the link-cancel issue is becoming a widely used practice.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Loretta Guarino Reid
> > <lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:
> > This would be covered by 1.1.1:
> >
> > If non-text content is a control or accepts user input, then it has a
> > name that describes its purpose. (Refer to Guideline 4.1 for additional
> > requirements for controls and content that accepts user input.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:39 AM, adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone
> > Does 2.4.4 require there to be link text? Or, in cases where there is
> > no link text (for instance a background image of text), a descriptive
> > title attribute would suffice, since screen readers (at least Jaws that
> > I know for sure) will read the title attribute when no text is present?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 08:27:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 December 2011 08:27:29 GMT