RE: Programmatically determined link context

As is so often the case, the answer depends on whether we are considering WCAG conformance or the user experience. In terms of WCAG conformance, the list provides context for the link, so it is conformant. Screen reader vendors have chosen not to do anything with the semantics provided by description lists, but that is irrelevant from a WCAG conformance perspective.

There is a possible caveat, which depends on our interpretation of “accessibility supported technologies”. There is no question that HTML is an accessibility supported technology. But does the “technology” term apply to individual HTML elements? I have read the relevant sections of WCAG countless times and cannot answer that.

If it does apply to individual HTML elements, I think we would all agree that description lists are not accessibility supported, in which case they cannot be relied on to provide context for the links.

Steve


From: Marc Haunschild <marc.haunschild@accessibility.consulting>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2023 7:58 AM
To: Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com>
Cc: Juliette McShane Alexandria <mcshanejuliette@gmail.com>; Kevin Prince <kevin.prince@fostermoore.com>; Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>; Ms J <ms.jflz.woop@gmail.com>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Programmatically determined link context




And how does one consume this programmatic context using a screen reader?

I’m not an authentic screenreader user, so I don’t know which screenreader supports this programmatically determinable relationship and how to use it.

Also I don’t say. That this is a best practice.

You of course can support users with aria (aria-described by on the links should do the job). But when there is an AAA SC, it already indicates that there might be a better way to provide information about a link target.

In my opinion it’s best to use the content of the a-Element to provide a meaningful accessible name for every link.

As a tester I even might be seduced to give a fail for a dd that holds a meaningless Link only. Because it is for description and one can think, that’s not the proper role for what this element is used for, as there is no description.

This might be a little harsh, as a dl has no implicit semantics, but the ARIA Spec also says:

"The elements marked with No corresponding role, in the second column of the table do not have any implicit ARIA semantics<https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#implicit_semantics>, but they do have meaning and this meaning may be represented in roles, states and properties not provided by ARIA, and exposed to users of assistive technology via accessibility APIs.“
https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aria/#dfn-no-corresponding-role

This once again supports, that it’s the responsibility of the screenreader vendor to analyse the given relations between elements and help the user to access it.

Anyway: while a dl might work for passing SC 2.4.4 it still can fail other SCs like SC 4.1.2:
Name, Role, Value (Level A).

Marc




From: Marc Haunschild (Accessibility Consulting) <marc.haunschild@accessibility.consulting<mailto:marc.haunschild@accessibility.consulting>>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 3:13 PM
To: Juliette McShane Alexandria <mcshanejuliette@gmail.com<mailto:mcshanejuliette@gmail.com>>
Cc: Kevin Prince <kevin.prince@fostermoore.com<mailto:kevin.prince@fostermoore.com>>; Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk<mailto:steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>>; Ms J <ms.jflz.woop@gmail.com<mailto:ms.jflz.woop@gmail.com>>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Programmatically determined link context


The Understanding document says the "same list item". I believe the term and definition are considered the 'same' item.

Besides there is a sufficient technique (H80) that uses a preceding heading as context.

The relationship between dt and dd is similar to text with a heading.



The HTML spec says:

"The dt/dd element represents the description, definition, or value, part of a term-description group in a description list (dl element)." (emphasis added)

Anyway I still think that description lists are not well designed in html  - as a developer I wished about a billion times there would have been a grouping element around dt and dd - but that’s another story…



I would agree that for the purposes of WCAG 2.1 level AA SC 2.4.4 if the needed context is in a dt/dd pair then the link has appropriate context

Full ACK - although dt can be followed by multiple dds - so it’s not necessarily a pair.

Sorry for being a little pedantic. I’m German. I just try to fit into the stereotype
😉
Marc



Best,
Juliette

On 8/9/2023 11:34:34 AM, Kevin Prince <kevin.prince@fostermoore.com<mailto:kevin.prince@fostermoore.com>> wrote:
I’d agree – the list gives them a clear relationship.

Kevin

Kevin Prince
Product Accessibility & Usability Consultant

Foster Moore
A Teranet Company

E kevin.prince@fostermoore.com<mailto:kevin.prince@fostermoore.com>
Christchurch
fostermoore.com<http://www.fostermoore.com/>
From: Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk<mailto:steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>>
Date: Thursday, 10 August 2023 at 2:40 AM
To: Ms J <ms.jflz.woop@gmail.com<mailto:ms.jflz.woop@gmail.com>>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Programmatically determined link context
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization.

I would say that they are.

Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd


From: Ms J <ms.jflz.woop@gmail.com<mailto:ms.jflz.woop@gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 2:20 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Programmatically determined link context

Hello

Just a quick one. Are the terms in a description list <dt> part of the programmatically determined link context for links in the corresponding definition tag <dd>

Example:
<dl>
<dt>first page</dt><dd><a href>link</a></dd>

<dt>second page</dt><dd><a href>link</a></dd>

</dl>

We believe they are but weren't sure how stringent the definition of 'programmatically determined link context' was as it says 'includes...' so we weren't sure if that was 'includes only' or 'includes but is not limited to'.

Thanks!

Sarah
Sent from Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>