- From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 15:49:38 -0400
- To: "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Cc: "'Ben Caldwell'" <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>, <michaelc@watchfire.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Thanks Kynn I liked your talk at CSUN by the way. Your post says: "If we say that document structure is important and you must use it, and then we say that ALSO the page must be usable WITHOUT structure, we are asking an awful lot." I don't think blind users are saying the page should be usable without structure. They are simply saying that they find being able to scan lists of links helpful. They are grateful that structure is being introduced into many sites and find it to be a great leap forward in accessibility but they consider that as something distinct. As a sighted person I can scan a document, and quickly figure out the context of each link. A blind person finds the context when they hit the Headings dialogue box but they currently don't see the links that are under those headings in the same dialogue box. So they do not have the same contextual advantage as me. What helps them compensate is being able to bring up a separate box of links that says more than "buy it", "more info", "Click here" etc. The other point that screen reader user Harry Monk brought forward was that although we are seeing the beginnings of the introduction of Headers into web sites, the vast majority still don't use them. Perhaps in the future, Screen Readers may want to introduce a dialogue box where all the headings are listed with the LINKS that are under those headings in the same dialogue box. Then I would be more inclined to believe that blind people could quickly establish the context of each link without meaningful link names. In WCAG 1.0 Web Masters were required to structure the document properly. (Section 3.5 - although it was not as well articulated as it will be in WCAG 2.0) AND have meaningful links (13.1) I don't see how we are being over demanding by saying they should still make links meaningful. If blind users report to us that they do not require the links dialogue box anymore because the Headings dialogue box satisfies all their needs, then I would agree that we should deprecate the requirement. That's not what I'm hearing. I'll be interested to find out what others are hearing. ========================= Access Empowers People... ...Barriers Disable Them www.eramp.com -----Original Message----- From: Kynn Bartlett [mailto:kynn@idyllmtn.com] Sent: August 6, 2003 5:29 PM To: David MacDonald Cc: 'Ben Caldwell'; michaelc@watchfire.com; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 10:58 AM, David MacDonald wrote: > So I recommend that we not justify any use ambiguous link names. Kibitzing: Such a requirement basically says that all links must make sense when taken out of context -- this is a bad thing if we are also emphasizing the importance of structure in documents. If we say that document structure is important and you must use it, and then we say that ALSO the page must be usable WITHOUT structure, we are asking an awful lot. Something like this: <section> <h>Teach Yourself CSS in 24 Hours</h> <p>Blah blah blah</p> <p><a href="http://amazon.example.com/blahblah">Buy it!</a></p> </section> ...is not ambiguous. From context, it makes perfect sense what is being presented here. Likewise: <dl> <dt>Kynn Bartlett</dt> <dd><a href="mailto:kynn@idyllmtn.com">Email</a>, <a href="http://kynn.com/">Website</a></dd> <dt>David MacDonald</dt> <dd><a href="mailto:befree@magma.ca">Email</a> </dl> ...is not ambiguous either. In both cases, the context provides meaning to the link. Removing the context -- as assistive technologies have been doing -- is not a proper solution for accessibility's sake. In fact, it is a practice which is harmful to accessibility. Constructing an outline based on headings is a good thing. Constructing such an outline and then adding links in is also a good thing. Even providing a straight list of links is reasonable, although not particularly useful since context is removed. However, Web developers should not be required to support this third option -- a flat list of links titles -- because that is not how markup is meant to function. Sometimes, context can be removed. Other times it cannot. The heading tags (<h1> ... <h6> or <h>) are designed to be able to abstract document structure in such a manner. The <a> tag is most definitely not built this way, at least when it comes to href links. (A list of ANCHORS, formed with <a name>, on the other hand, is a good idea -- and such anchors should probably have title attributes attached. Sadly, though, this is not currently supported by user agents, is it?) I caution you to very seriously reconsider the notion of requiring pages to "make sense" with vital context -- including accessibility elements and attributes -- removed from the presentation (as with lists of links). Such a practice is ultimately harmful to the cause of accessibility because (a) it can result in poor UI design, (b) it can result in rejection of accessibility by informed Web developers, (c) it encourages a practice which goes against the idea of structured markup, and (d) it does not encourage the assistive technology vendors to improve their abilities to generate document abstracts. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Author, CSS in 24 Hours http://cssin24hours.com Inland Anti-Empire Blog http://blog.kynn.com/iae Shock & Awe Blog http://blog.kynn.com/shock
Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 15:50:02 UTC