W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Limit on the links in a page

From: <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:06:46 -0400 (EDT)
To: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
cc: W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1208091006070.31973@cygnus.smart.net>

is this in a tree format or all linked to each other.
my mind boggles at why so many links.

Bob


On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:

> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 21:07:32 +0800
> From: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
> To: W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Limit on the links in a page
> Resent-Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:11:23 +0000
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> 
> Hi all
>
> I was having a discussion with a colleage about the number of links on pages and how that poses a burden on users of screen readers in particular.  One page recently had over 2000 links which, if you were using a screen reader and trying to find your way around via the links, would be incredibly frustrating.  It also caused the automatic tool being used to verify results to fall over and surrender.
>
> We wondered if there is any mention in WCAG of the need to limit the links.  I couldn't find anything, but some of you might know the answer to this.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(cs)
> PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
> Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
> v.conway@ecu.edu.au
> v.conway@webkeyit.com
> Mob: 0415 383 673
>
> This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the original message.
> ________________________________________
> From: Chaals McCathieNevile [w3b@chaals.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 9 August 2012 8:10 PM
> To: W3C WAI ig; Harry Loots
> Subject: Re: does alternate version comply with SC 2.1
>
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:10:27 +0200, Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>
> wrote:
>
>> ... by being forced to use the table, [users] are denied the advantages
>> offered by the timeline (e.g.: context, comparison at a glance, etc).
>
> I think that pretty much explains the issue.
>
> Is it clear that to use a keyboard you have to find the alternative
> version? How hard is it to make the thing respond to keyboard control?
>
> It seems your developer is proposing something that probably technically
> fulfils the minimum possible requirement, but is really second-rate (to
> almost avoid saying "half-arsed amateurish") work.
>
> If you're prepared to pay for that, the developer can probably justify it
> as acceptable. If this is truly the scenario, please let me know who the
> project team is so I don't risk hiring them.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> --
> Chaals - standards declaimer
>
> This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of the information provided.
>
> CRICOS IPC 00279B
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 15:01:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:30 UTC