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

Re: Succession Criteria 2.4.9 vs. 3.2.4

From: W Reagan <wreagan1@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 15:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <319599.81792.qm@web111609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, gv@trace.wisc.edu
Then after seeing the description from 2.4.9, how can I pass text links and 3.2.4 Is it sufficient enough to pass 2.4.4, not adopt 2.4.9, and seperately pass 3.2.4?
 
OR is 2.4.4 the failed technique, and 2.4.9 the required technique.
 
Can you give an example of how to use 2.4.9 and/or 2.4.4 with domain.com that will eventally pass 3.2.4. As of now, we pass Succession Criteria 2.4.4, (except for the "possibility" of downlodable dcouments). I say possibility because it might pass, but I am not sure. 
 
Using 2.4.4, how can I pass 3.2.4.
--- On Sun, 8/9/09, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:


From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: Succession Criteria 2.4.9 vs. 3.2.4
To: "W Reagan" <wreagan1@yahoo.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, gv@trace.wisc.edu, public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Date: Sunday, August 9, 2009, 4:31 PM


On 09/08/2009 02:08, W Reagan wrote:
> My health department wants me to adopt text links 2.4.4, but reject
> 2.4.9. The health department also wants me to adopt 3.2.3 (Consistent
> ID). There is a reference between 2.4.9 and 3.2.3. Please look at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/navigation-mechanisms-link.html
> "The intent of this Success Criterion is to help users understand the
> purpose of each link in the content, so they can decide whether they
> want to follow it. Links with the same destination should have the same
> descriptions (per Success Criterion 3.2.4
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#consistent-behavior-consistent-functionality>),
> but links with different purposes and destinations should have different
> descriptions. Because the purpose of a link can be identified from its
> link text, links can be understood when they are out of context, such as
> when the user agent provides a list of all the links on a page."
> What does this mean in order to pass Succesion Criteria ?

It cannot have any normative effect on the Success Criterion in the Recommendation, because it's an informative note.

In other words, it's a document intended to help you pass the Success Criterion, but /cannot/ change the actual requirements.

> 1) In order to pass Succession Criteria, 3.2.4 as requested, I must
> first pass Succession Criteria 2.4.9, therefore I need both.

They are independent criteria. So strictly speaking, no.

> 2) Succesion Criteria 2.4.9 is one of many "Sufficient Techniques" to
> pass Succesion Criteria 3.2.4, therefore I can "opt-out" of 2.4.9

Success Criteria are not techniques. They are criteria to be tested. So no.

> OR
> 3) Even if Succesion Criteria 2.4.9 passed, Succesion Criteria 3.2.4 can
> still be a failure

That's true. They are independent criteria. For example, you might have one page that labels a link to the site help "Site Help" and another page that labels a link to site help "Site Assistance", and that /could/ be judged to pass 2.4.9 (you can work out what the links do from the link text) but fail 3.2.4 (the links are labeled differently, and that's  confusing).

(Please note I stress "could" because these are example personal judgements..)

> , but it [Success Criteria 2.4.9] reduces the workload of passing Succesion
> Criteria 3.2.4.

I think it means knowing the purpose of a link from the link text (2.4.9) is easier if you use consistent link text (3.2.4).

> Note: Under 3.2.4 Sufficient Techniques, we have no problem adopting
> example bullet #3.

[snip]

> Without forms it  is it [3.2.4, presumably?] still an applicable Succession Criteria?

Yes. For example, we know your webpages include links: those are components with functionality, and 3.2.4 applies to components with functionality.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Sunday, 9 August 2009 23:00:53 GMT

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