W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > July 2010

Apparent contradiction with 2.4.4 and 2.4.9

From: <sheena.mccullagh@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:39:40 +0000
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OergS-0001XJ-43@tibor.w3.org>

Name: Sheena McCullagh
Email: sheena.mccullagh@blueyonder.co.uk
Affiliation: Member of the public
Document: W2
Item Number: (none selected)
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: question
Summary of Issue: Apparent contradiction with 2.4.4 and 2.4.9
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
I'm Aspergers presenting as dyslexia and dyspraxia, which give me specific access needs, however I'm heavily into web accessibility across the board and I've just stumbled across something that I can't make any sense of, could you please explain:

In both SC 2.4.4 and 2.4.9 there is the same text:

'Links with the same destination should have the same descriptions (per Success Criterion 3.2.4), but links with different purposes and destinations should have different descriptions.'

In reference to the second clause of that sentence; while I accept that this doesn't mean that you necessarily have to have the visible link text saying different things for each different link destination, eg you can use something like technique C7 to hide a portion of the link text, I read it that ultimately each different link should have different link text and 2.4.9 does expressly state that within it's examples of success.

However in 2.4.4, one of the examples of success reads:

'News article summaries

A Web page contains a collection of news articles. The main page lists the first few sentences of each article, followed by a "Read more" link. A screen reader command to read the current paragraph provides the context to interpret the purpose of the link.'

While I accept the adjacent content provides context, it's still the same link text being used to trigger different destinations.  That seems to me to contradict the first quoted text.

The only time I have seen 'read more' type links used on 'big web sites', they've also added a title or hidden part of the link text hence the rendered link text is different for each news article, yet there is no such warning within the above extract from 2.4.4.  While I accept that it is possible to get AT to read the adjacent text, as per G53 and H78, this is very cumbersome and if the above mentioned summary page was very long, I strongly suspect that most people would give up especially if they had to listen to the entire entry for each article.

To me it seems daft that a guideline that appears to be primarily aimed mainly at screen reader users would allow a 'success' for something that is likely to cause them problems, as born out in F84:

'Many blind people who use screen readers call up a dialog box that has a list of links from the page. They use this list of links to decide where they will go. But if many of the links in that list simply say "click here" or "more" they will be unable to use this feature in their screen reader, which is a core navigation strategy. That's why it's a failure of 2.4.9 to not provide any way of allowing them to know the destination from the link text alone. It is also true for people who tab through links. If all they hear as they tab through the document is "click here, click here, click here etc." they will become confused.'

Can you please explain to me the apparent contradiction or if it's not a contradiction, how identical text in two different SCs can have different meanings?

Or perhaps the above quoted 2.4.4 success could be amended???

I really do fail to see how the way SC 2.4.4 has been constructed is actually a help to those it's supposed to help, especially when G53 gives:

Example 1: 

A Web page contains the sentence "To advertise on this page, click here."

Although the link phrase 'click here' is not sufficient to understand the link, the information needed precedes the link in the same sentence.'

Click here!!!!!!  Click is a mouse specific term, people using screen readers can't 'click' anywhere let alone 'here'.  It is actually quite an offensive term to some screen reader users as it demonstrates lack of understanding.  Granted it's in common usage, but to see it in w3c does rather imply endorsement of the term in general, regardless of it's suitability as link text.

Proposed Change:
Received on Friday, 30 July 2010 15:39:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:13 UTC