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

2.4.4 W/DOWLODABLE DOCUMENTS

From: W Reagan <wreagan1@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 19:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <391349.23942.qm@web111615.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Cc: gv@trace.wisc.edu

I recerntly got a consultants opinion: I highlited important information where they think it would pass or fail.

I have the following questions:
Q 1: A government site has already adopted
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G189 and included size
 of the document..
 Do I need to copy this information on my site, or is a link to the
government website sufficient since they have the information?

A: So the government site is providing an entire alternative version of
the page simply to provide links that make sense alone or in context?
This sure seems silly to provide and manage an entirely new version of
a web site to resolve such a very minor accessibility issue.

A: For your situation, if you are linking to the main page (not the
alternative), I'd think this is sufficient. The government site is
providing the alternative and I don't see any need for you to do the
same on your site. WCAG compliance applies to your site, not to any
sites you link to.
 
Q 2: A government site recently modified a document I linked to. Now it is in
two seperate documents on their server. Can a link to the page be
sufficient, each new individual document, or is there an alternate?

Yes. :-) As long as the user on your site knows where they are going,
it doesn't matter if you link to the documents or to the government
page that contains links to those documents.

Q 3: My boss is against technique G189 (specification of file type and file
size). If I specify it but use C7 (hide the associated text links, does it
pass WCAG 2.0/2.4.4)?

A: There's nothing in G189 or 2.4.4 that requires that you identify the
file type or file size. These simply require that the content and
function of the links be differentiable within their context.

In my opinion, everyone benefits from having the file type and file
size presented, but if you're not going to bother to present this
information visually, I wouldn't worry about hiding it in there just
for screen reader users. In other words, if your boss won't let you
make it friendly and usable - forcing the accessibility just for
screen reader users is mostly pointless (and it doesn't satisfy 2.4.4
anyway).

Q 4:) "If" C7 is not acceptable for statement # 3, can I use the alt tag as
used technique H30?

A:) It doesn't matter how the file type and size is presented, I don't
think this alone accomplishes 2.4.4. The issue with 2.4.4 isn't that
file type/size information needs to be presented, it's that the
CONTENT of the link needs to be presented in a differentiable way.
Consider the the following two examples:

- Application (Word Doc - 2MB)
- Application (PDF file - 14KB)

or...

- Employment Application
- Grant Application

The first one has the file type and size, but there's no way of
knowing what actually differentiates the two applications. This would
not, in my opinion, satisfy 2.4.4. The second example does not have
the file details, but they are independently distinguishable and do
satisfy 2.4.4 (and 2.4.9). Hopefully that makes sense. Of course the
best option would be"Employment Application (Word Doc - 2MB)" all
within the link.

Which scenarios does the WAI Working Group agree with. Please specify by Q1, Q2, Q3, or Q4.


      
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 02:02:23 GMT

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