W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: 2.4.4 Sample

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:03:52 +0100
Message-ID: <4A7A8E68.7000806@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: Chris Reeve <chrisreeve15@yahoo.com>
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Chris Reeve wrote:
> Scenario A:
>  
> If I had a link to 
> http://www.illinois.gov/gov/intopportunities.htm#dunn and my link title 
> was "State of Illonis - Pat Quinn, Governor". they already complied with 
> 2.4.4 for the requirement for downlodable material.

Their compliance with 2.4.4 is irrelevant.

You are responsible for compliance, but we would have to know why you 
included that link before we could say whether you were compliant.

If your page was entitled "A List of Senior US Elected Officials", your 
link might be adequate, when referring to an HTML document.  If the link 
pointed to a link to a PDF document without an associated, significant, 
HTML abstract, you should have linked the PDF directly, which would make 
you responsible for any warnings about the nature of the content.  A 
significant abstract is one that would either satisfy many users' needs 
without recourse to the full PDF document, or would satisfy realistic 
questions about whether or not they needed the full information.)

If your page contained names of both supporters and objectors to a 
project, you might need to indicate whether they were a supporter or 
objector in the link text.


-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 08:04:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:32 GMT