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: Chris Reeve <chrisreeve15@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 00:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <556833.62589.qm@web46111.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
To: 'WAI Interest Group list' <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, Tim <dogstar27@optushome.com.au>
Cc: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>, gv@trace.wisc.edu, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, Richard_Userite <richard@userite.com>, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
I would like to revise my statement to Jonathan:
 
I posted if # 1, what should I do?
 
If # 2, what should I do?
 
If # 3, what should I do?
 
Question 1:  When am I allowed to adopt H30. Is it sufficient under circumstance #1, #2, #3, and ignore G189?
 
Question 2: When am I required to adopt G189, which specifies the file type and size.  Scenario #1, #2, or #3?
 
Question 3: Since my boss is against G189, I adopted C7, to hide text (PDF, 25 KB). Can 2.4.4 still pass?  The code is written up so it passes, but it is invisible (satisifes boss, and might satisfy WCAG). A previous group said it would be a failure. Were they wrong? If it is allowed, under which circumstance #1, #2, or #3.

Question 4:  If the visited site complies with 2.4.4 by specifying file type and size, am I still required to comply?
 

--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Tim <dogstar27@optushome.com.au> wrote:


From: Tim <dogstar27@optushome.com.au>
Subject: Re: Text links 2.4.4 with PDF's (Sample document) (and one link or multiple links to the destination)
To: "'WAI Interest Group list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 4:32 AM


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 07:12:37 GMT

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