W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > March 2012

Re: adjacent multiple image links

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:13:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHu5OWZ5f8ZHZL7+9g5XySZcPvDBmu0cx_nMoqG7L+jVDsKOyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc." <makoto.ueki@gmail.com>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc. <
makoto.ueki@gmail.com> wrote:

> I really appreciate all your help.
>
> I'd like to ask you an additional question.
>
> Should the link text be the same to meet SC 3.2.4 if they are the
> links for the same resource?
> Please see the CASE 1-2 and 3-2 below. Do they meet SC 3.2.4?
>
> > CASE 1:
> > <p>
> > <a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx.png" alt="WCAG 2.0"></a>
> > <a href="xxx.html>WCAG 2.0</a>
> > </p>
>
> CASE 1-2:
> <p>
> <a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx.png" alt="WCAG 2.0"></a>
> <a href="xxx.html>About WCAG 2.0</a>
> </p>
>
> > CASE 3:
> > <p>
> > <a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx01.png" alt="WCAG 2.0"></a>
> > <a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx02.png" alt="WCAG 2.0"></a>
> > </p>
>
> CASE 3-2:
> <p>
> <a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx01.png" alt="WCAG 2.0"></a>
> <a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx02.png" alt="About WCAG 2.0"></a>
> </p>
>
>
> 2012/2/24 Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc.
> > <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Loretta,
> >>
> >> We'd like to get the official answer from WCAG working group on this
> >> issue.
> >>
> >> Our understanding was that CASE 1 and 3 would not meet SC 1.1.1
> >> because H2 technique is not used. If this is not true, we'll have to
> >> revise our criterion.
> >>
> >> Could you confirm that the official answer from WCAG working group
> >> would be the same?
> >>
> >>
> >> - Makoto
> >>
> > ================================
> > Response from the Working Group
> > ================================
> >
> > Makoto asks: Do you mean that the following case would meet SC 1.1.1,
> 2.4.4
> > and 2.4.9?
> >
> >
> > CASE 1:
> > <p>
> > <a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx.png" alt="WCAG 2.0"></a>
> > <a href="xxx.html>WCAG 2.0</a>
> > </p>
> >
> > CASE 2:
> > <p>
> > <a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx.png" alt=""></a>
> > <a href="xxx.html>WCAG 2.0</a>
> > </p>
> >
> > CASE 3:
> > <p>
> > <a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx01.png" alt="WCAG 2.0"></a>
> > <a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx02.png" alt="WCAG 2.0"></a>
> > </p>
> >
> > CASE 4:
> > <p>
> > <a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx01.png" alt="WCAG 2.0"></a>
> > <a href="xxx.html><img src="xxx02.png" alt=""></a>
> > </p>
> >
> >
> > Case 1: The first link meets SC 1.1.1 using H37: Using alt attributes on
> img
> > elements. It meets SC 2.4.4 and 2.4.9 using H30: Providing link text that
> > describes the purpose of a link for anchor elements.
> >
> > Case 2: The first link fails 1.1.1, since there is no text alternative
> for
> > the image.
> >
> > Case 3: Both links meet SC 1.1.1 using H37: Using alt attributes on img
> > elements. They meet SC 2.4.4 and 2.4.9 using H30: Providing link text
> that
> > describes the purpose of a link for anchor elements.
> >
> > Case 4: The second link fails 1.1.1, since there is no text alternative
> for
> > the image.
> >
> > Regarding redundancy of the links in the cases above, there is no WCAG
> > requirement to avoid redundancy. It is only advisory.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
> > Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
> > Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact
> >
> >
> > On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
> >
>

================================
Response from the Working Group
================================
They should be consistent but do not HAVE to be identical.

In this case we would recommend that you make them identical so it was
clear to the user that if they had visited one, that clicking on the second
link with the exact same text would take them to the place they had already
been.   If they are slightly different, it might imply that what is at the
other end is also slightly different.

We are adding the following example to Understanding SC 3.2.4 to clarify:

Example 5.5: Icon and adjacent link to same destination
An icon with alt text and a link are next to each other and go to the same
location. The best practice would be to group them into one link as per H2.
However if they are visually positioned one above the other but separated
in the source, this may not be possible. To meet the Success Criterion, the
link text for these two links need only be consistent, not identical. But
best practice is to have identical text so that when users encounter the
second one, it is clear that it goes to the same place as the first.

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact


On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 21:14:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:14 UTC