W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Inconsistency between explanation for SC 2.4.4 and SC 3.2.4 ( LC-2868)

From: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 05:31:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1389965519.86919.YahooMailNeo@web122101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
To: "akirkpat@adobe.com" <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: "public-comments-wcag20@w3.org" <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>
Andrew / Michael,
Thanks for the response and your attention to the comment.
The resolution is fine by me.
Regards,
Sailesh
 

    

________________________________
From: "akirkpat@adobe.com" <akirkpat@adobe.com>
To: Sailesh Pangchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com> 
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org 
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Inconsistency between explanation for SC 2.4.4 and SC 3.2.4 ( LC-2868)


Dear Sailesh Pangchang ,

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has reviewed the
comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the
Understanding WCAG 2.0 published on 5 Sep 2013. Thank you for having taken
the time to review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
public-comments-wcag20@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 21 January
2014. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a
consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a
formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the
transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation
Track.

Thanks,

For the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group,
Michael Cooper
W3C Staff Contact

1. http://www.w3.org/mid/E1VhNWc-0005pO-9b@shauna.w3.org
2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20130905/


=====

Your comment on Link Purpose (In Context): Understanding Success Criterion
2.4.4:
> In trying to determine if links with same href but different link-text
> violate WCAG2 I came across this statements:
> As per SC 2.4.4(A):
> "Links with the same destination should have the same descriptions (per
> 
> Success Criterion 3.2.4), ..."
> ===
> However, SC 3.2.4 clarifies that not having identical text does not
> create a failure. So someone reading the above statement in the
> explanation for SC 2.4.4 will certainly conclude otherwise.
> Extracts from SC 3.2.4 explanation:
> While it is desirable and best practice always to be consistent within a
> single web page, 3.2.4 only addresses consistency within a set of web
> pages where something is repeated on more than one page in the set.
> Also:
> Note 1: Text alternatives that are "consistent" are not always
> "identical." 
>  And from an example:
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Suggested fix to the sentence under SC 2.4.4:
> While it is a best practice for links with the same destination to have
> the same descriptions (per Success Criterion 3.2.4), ..."


Working Group Resolution (LC-2868):
Thank you for your comment. It seems that there may be a misunderstanding
of the 2.4.4 understanding text.  There is no requirement implied that the
links _must_ have the same descriptions, just that they should.

Your point about 3.2.4 only applying to links in sets of pages is correct,
so we propose modifying the sentence in 2.4.4 to:

It is a best practice for links with the same destination to have
consistent descriptions (and this is a requirement per Success Criterion
3.2.4 for pages in a set). It is also a best practice for links with
different purposes and destinations to have different descriptions.

----
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 13:32:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:17 UTC