Re: Techniques revision - Meaningful link names

Kynn is correct and is rearticulating a point I had made on the list
previously.

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003AprJun/0289.html>

David is incorrect, and bases his entire argument on the peccadillos of a
preferred adaptive technology. It's none of WAI's business which features
an adaptive technology (that always means Jaws for Windows) may introduce
to spontaneously remix Web sites without authorial consent. You can't have
it both ways: A page that works well in correct structure and one that
works when the pieces are tossed into a hat and pulled out randomly.

> 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.

Here is a list of links, schematically:

<ul>
<li><a></a></li>
<li><a></a></li>
<li><a></a></li>
<li><a></a></li>
</ul>

That's a reasonable HTML structure. Extracted link text isn't a structure.


> 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.

Structural HTML is important. Specific page-remixing features of screen
readers are not.

> 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.

That will happen in serial vs. random presentation. The proposed solution
does not solve that ineradicable problem and raises problems of its own.

> 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.

That feature could and should be reprogrammed to feature the entire
sentence, ±5 words on either side, the title attribute, and a range of
other information. Or the user could just read the sentence *exactly as a
sighted person does*.

> 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.

Further evidence that structural HTML is the priority, not accommodation
of individual product features. WCAG 2 needs to entirely eliminate the
bastard child of Web accessibility, "until user agents," and its cousin,
"since our preferred user agent has neato feature that permits."

> 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.

Links should be meaningful in and of themselves and in context, but not if
spontaneously remixed in unforeseeable ways.

Why *are* people still claiming this is in any way worthy of WCAG 2?


> -----Original Message-----

*Cough*.

-- 
Joe Clark
<http://joeclark.org/access>

Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 17:02:29 UTC