W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > September 2015

Re: Best citation format for accessibility

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:31:49 -0400
Message-ID: <5603FB45.2020601@berjon.com>
To: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
On 24/09/2015 08:48 , Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken wrote:
> My WCAG concern is
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140916/G53 Identifying
> the purpose of the link. If I simply append the Name date citation to
> the end of sentence or paragraph, is the link actually
> understandable? Further, if the same Name Date (Smith 2015) is used
> repeatedly in a publication, does that add a layer of confusion?

I could be wrong but I don't think that's an issue. The technique does
state that if the content preceding the link provides context for it,
it's helpful. So for instance, this should be fine:

    It has been established that, in dahut litters, contradextrous
offspring is rarely viable <a>(Berjon 1871a)</a>.

What may be less clear is the variant (which I'm sure has a name) used
when the name is part of the sentence:

    Herman <a>(1968)</a> has found significant correlation (p > 0.05)
between facial hair abundance and several metrics of wisdom profundity.

When the link arrives, there is little context in which to interpret it.
Even adding title='Reference: Herman 1968' might not help since you
don't yet know what statement it is backing up. That being said,
scholarly articles aren't general-audience content. You have to assume
that readers, irrespective of AT, are somewhat familiar with the
conventions (otherwise it's just a puzzling to sighted users).

• Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
• http://science.ai/ — intelligent science publishing
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 13:32:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:12 UTC