RE: SC 2.4.5, meaningful link text

This starts getting us into a list.   Is there some way to characterize
these so that we don't have to do a list.     What is it about these two
(and perhaps others) that makes them exceptions?

 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

 

 


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of David MacDonald
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 9:48 AM
To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: SC 2.4.5, meaningful link text

The other possibility is newspaper home pages that have story summaries
followed by a link "more". Blind users would like meaningful text on these
pages but I think some accessibility people might think a case could be made
for this exception. If we allowed this exception (which I don't particularly
recommend) the intent section might look something like this.

 

----------------------

Provide meaningful link text, unless:

-the link is part of an array of links to different versions (or views) of
the same information.

-it is a link to the full text of a summary and the link comes directly
after this summary.

--------------------------------

 

My preference would be this:

"Provide meaningful link text, unless the link is part of an array of links
to different versions (or views) of the same information."  

 

 

 

 

.Access empowers people
            .barriers disable them.

 <http://www.eramp.com> www.eramp.com


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 1:18 AM
To: 'David MacDonald'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: SC 2.4.5, meaningful link text

 

This looks good and gets around one of the big dilemmas on this.   

 

I think this is a workable solution unless people can think of other
conflicts.   I am still concerned that there might be more.  Anyone know of
any?

 

Should we proceed in this manner?

 

Team B has this guideline - so I will refer this to that team.  


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

 

 


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of David MacDonald
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:43 PM
To: 'David MacDonald'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: SC 2.4.5, meaningful link text

I think the following line would a little better for SC 2.4.5 how to meet.

 

"Provide meaningful link text, unless the link is part of an array of links
to different versions (or views) of the same information."  

 

David MacDonald

 

.Access empowers people
            .barriers disable them.

www.eramp.com


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of David MacDonald
Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 5:30 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: SC 2.4.5, meaningful link text

 

This is a response to the editorial note asking for comments, in
"Understanding WCAG" Doc, How to Meet Success Criterion 2.4.5" . 

 

The note gives an example of when meaningful link text might not be
desirable. I agree with this example. When there are several links to
different versions of the same document it is perhaps not desirable to have
meaningful link text. On the other hand, there is a strong sentiment among
screen reader users that I polled when doing some research for this issue,
that meaningful link text is extremely important. There is a good case to be
made that giving screen readers meaningful link text is compensating for
something that sighted users do naturally, skim through links. The screen
reader users I polled think this is a very important issue.

 

I suggest something like the following:

 

"Provide meaningful link text, unless the link is part of an array of links
to different versions of the same document."  

 

Happy New Year

 

David MacDonald 

 

.Access empowers people
            .barriers disable them.

www.eramp.com