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

Re: Text links 2.4.4 with PDF's (Sample document) (and one link or multiple links to the destination)

From: Tim <dogstar27@optushome.com.au>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 14:32:46 +1000
Message-Id: <9d1ca9efe5617d943e9f5fe8e19c6cda@optushome.com.au>
To: "'WAI Interest Group list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
May I protest about the posting of private emails to this group that  
were never addressed to it.

If a member sends another member an email intended to help them, it is  
deliberately not sent to the entire group.
How can someone quote another person's email in a critical fashion to a  
group the author did not intend to receive it.
We have privacy laws in Australia, does that apply here, or can I send  
to the whole group any email any member has sent me?

Tim

On 08/08/2009, at 2:20 PM, Chris Reeve wrote:

> Jonathan, last week I got a different response that it is my  
> responsibility and linking to the HTML page that contains PDF's is not  
> valid. Linking to the PDF's is a must.  This is my link type
>  
> 1. Directly to the PDF's, (some destination sites already met 2.4.4 by  
> specifying file size and file type on their server). I was advised  
> their accessibillity critieria does not matter. I still need to meet  
> 2.4.4.
> 2. "Trying" to link to their html/text version (if available) to avoid  
> the issue
> 3. Linking to a page when the site revised a document and split  
> one PDF into two or more PDF's.
>  
> If #1 is applicable, what should I do?
>  
> If # 2 is applicable, what should I do?
>  
> If # 3 is applicable what should I do?
>  
> Also, can I avoid specification of file size and type (as suggested in  
> G189) and use the alt tag (specified in H30)?
>
> --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
>> Subject: RE: Text links 2.4.4 with PDF's (Sample document) (and one  
>> link or multiple links to the destination)
>> To: "'Chris Reeve'" <chrisreeve15@yahoo.com>
>> Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 1:58 AM
>>
>>
>> If you are linking to their HTML page you do not need to indicate  
>> file size or file type of links from that page, that is not your  
>> responsibility.  If you are linking to PDF files on their site then  
>> you should but probably are not required to indicate in link txt or  
>> alt text that link is to a PDF file.  There are some people on these  
>> lists who will tell you otherwise because they make assertions about  
>> WCAG 2 that are not correct.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>  
>>
>> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On  
>> Behalf Of Chris Reeve
>> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 10:02 PM
>> To: Richard Warren; Phill Jenkins
>> Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick; Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org;  
>> lorettaguarino@google.com
>> Subject: Re: Text links 2.4.4 with PDF's (Sample document) (and one  
>> link or multiple links to the destination)
>>
>>  
>>
>> Please take a look at  
>> http://www.illinois.gov/gov/intopportunities.htm#dunn. It states the  
>> size of the document and the file type. I was advised if I link to  
>> this page, their accessibility status "does not matter". I was  
>> advised I need to duplicated file type in my text link. However,  
>> today I saw at  
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/navigation-mechanisms- 
>> refs.html H30, Example 5. It allows users to emphasize the file type  
>> in an alt tag, but  G189 at  
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G189 requires  
>> users to emphasizes the file type.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I was advised if I do not comply with G189, I would have an illegal  
>> website. My boss is against G189, but is for H30, because H30 does  
>> not require a visible change in the text links.
>>
>>  
>>
>> When I adopted G189, I adopted C7, hiding text links. Furthermore, I  
>> was advised that the use of C7 was illegal for this scenario.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Can I use H30 and ignore G189?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Also, the "acutal State website" I linked used to have one PDF.  
>> They split their PDF into three PDF's and a ZIP.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Scenaro A: Today Pay Quinn has four PDF's on the page I sent to you.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Scenario B:  "If" their internship forms two years ago was only one  
>> PDF, and "if WCAG 2 was the rule, not 1.0", what would be required  
>> for based on 2.4.4 for PDF's for downloable documents? 
>>
>>  
>>
>> Reason: The actual state site I am linking to split one PDF onto  
>> multiple PDF's.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Does this mean that my page requires me to have multiple text links  
>> for each PDF, or is there a workaround? (example of one possible  
>> workaround is to link to,  
>> http://www.illinois.gov/gov/intopportunities.htm#dunn) 
>>
>>  
>>
>> Gregg and Loretta, they (Phil, Richard, Andrew, and others from  
>> w3c-wai-ig@w3,org) cannot reach an agreement on this issue.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Each has their own opinion.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Can each of you cc each other privately with Gregg and Loretta in  
>> the string until conseus is achieved, or Gregg can you  
>> terminate these individiduals from membership? 
>>
>>  
>>
>> --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Text links 2.4.4 with PDF's
>>> To: "Richard Warren" <richard@userite.com>
>>> Cc: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "Gregg Vanderheiden"  
>>> <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org
>>> Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 12:49 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> >  . . . particular link is to open a PDF reader or a new window if  
>>> you have a modern browser. This is different to the default (HTML)
>>>
>>> true
>>>
>>> > so needs to be clearly specified within the link text so that  
>>> assistive software . . .
>>>
>>> Not in my opinion, the developer/author it is not required to add  
>>> the doc type with text.  2.4.4 includes the phrase "or from the link  
>>> text together with its programmatically determined link context."
>>>
>>> if the doc type is available programmatically, then I believe that  
>>> meets 2.4.4.  Personally I can't justify why the doc type, size or  
>>> anything else is required ALL the time when its available if I want  
>>> it.  It is definitely confusing to some user and requiring it in the  
>>> text is starting to border on reading the source HTML code, ugh.
>>>
>>> 'context' here is ALSO to be considered, so that if the purpose of  
>>> the link is to, perhaps, download a file, then that should be  
>>> available in the context to meet 2.4.4, not necessarily in the text  
>>> of the link itself.  .  
>>>
>>> >Try following a PDF link when using Lynx.
>>>
>>> Does anything happen differently to a user with or without a  
>>> disability, with or without a screen reader using LYNX?  
>>> I would suspect not, so how is it an accessibility issue?  although  
>>> I agree it is an equally bad issue for everyone using LYNX.
>>>
>>> Remember too that H30 is a 'sufficient' technique, not a 'required'  
>>> technique.  And I agree that "including the PDF icon in the link  
>>> text (with appropriate alt tag)" could just as easily be done by  
>>> adding the '(PDF)' text string but I believe usability studies show  
>>> that adding icons make is easier for sighted user with cognitive  
>>> disabilities, so I personally would recommend the icon with alt  
>>> attribute.
>>>
>>> >. . . level AAA we have 3.2.5 Change on Request: . . . Here change  
>>> of context includes . . . changing from a web-browser to Acrobat  
>>> Reader
>>>
>>> yes
>>>
>>> >. . .  So we need to warn the user that there will be a change of  
>>> context if the link is selected.
>>>
>>> Not in my opinion.  Most all links cause context changes.  A new  
>>> page is also a change of context.  The point of the requirement is  
>>> that the user needs to initiate the change, that it NOT happen  
>>> without the user's request i.e, clicking the link.  The "warning: is  
>>> only needed in my opinion if additional or un requested changes  
>>> occur - for  example, the server will disconnect after 20 minutes of  
>>> inactivity - that is the issue.
>>>
>>> > So, although the WAI guidelines do not categorically state that  
>>> "you should include any non-html format in the link text"
>>>
>>> Correct, and that is on purpose I believe
>>>
>>> > it is clearly implied and demonstrated throughout the  
>>> documentation . . . Exactly how you indicate the format is up to the  
>>> author. but the ... logo or the file format extension (PDF, DOC, PPT  
>>> etc.) should be adequate
>>>
>>> I agree it is used often in the guidelines, but it is not implying  
>>> that file type is required.  It is implying that when you have 3  
>>> similar links  together that go to different places, a sufficient  
>>> (but not required) way to do it is with the 3 icons or additional  
>>> file type in the link text.  Maybe we need more or better  
>>> techniques.  But we still give the developer/author some flexibility  
>>> and the standards writers some future capability to share new and  
>>> improved examples.  Wouldn't it be "easier and more accessible" for  
>>> me to set a setting in my browser or AT to always give me my  
>>> preferred format when there is a choice? DO I want the CSS version  
>>> for printing or the PDF version for printing?  maybe I don't need to  
>>> even be confused with the choice if it really doesn't matter.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Phill Jenkins  
>>>
The Editor
Heretic Press
http://www.hereticpress.com
Email dogstar27@optushome.com
Received on Saturday, 8 August 2009 04:39:34 GMT

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