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

Re: ( LC-2880)

From: <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 21:51:38 +0000
Message-Id: <E1WvZNq-00074Y-QV@jessica.w3.org>
To: Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
 Dear Wilco Fiers ,

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has reviewed the
comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Techniques
for WCAG 2.0 published on 16 Jan 2014. 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 june 21,
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


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

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/E1WDCeb-0005Pz-R1@shauna.w3.org
 2. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20140107/


Your comment on H2: Combining adjacent image and text links for the same
> As an HTML technique, this one is very strange. It doesn't give you a
> way to solve a certain problem, rather it says not to do something;
> namely to have two adjacent links with the same description. This seems
> much more the kind of thing failure techniques are for, the "Don't do
> X"-type. Failing H2 doesn't mean you failed the SC, since you can still
> have two links, one with an image and the next with a text, and the
> image has the same alternative as the text. The image can still meet
> technique H37 (img with descriptive alt) and thus someone might conclude
> this meets the success criteria.
> There is a pretty good argument that can be made against this scenario.
> If the W3C logo has the text "W3C logo" adjacent to it, this could be
> considered it's text alternative. Giving it an alt text of "W3C logo"
> would be redundant and thus the combined result of the two alternatives
> would be "W3C logo W3C logo" which is quite clearly not a good
> alternative. When these two bits of content are in separate links
> however, the content author MUST provide a text for each link in order
> to meet 4.1.2. So leaving the alt attribute empty wouldn't be a solution
> in this case either. The only possible solution would be to combine the
> two links.
> If this argument is valid (And I believe WCAG isn't quite specific
> enough to decide either way, but opinions my vary on this.), then that
> would mean having adjacent links one with an image and the other with a
> text would that had the same description would always be a failure. For
> 1.1.1 if the image repeated the text in its alt attribute and for 4.1.2
> if the alt attribute was left empty.
> This comment is part of the project for the Accessibility Support
> Database

Working Group Resolution (LC-2880):
This is a technique, and not a failure. As you note, having adjacent links
does not fail WCAG. This technique demonstrates how to improve the web
content usability for keyboard users. 

However, we agree that the technique needs improvement. We are updating the
technique to read as indicated on the wiki page:

Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 21:51:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:18 UTC