- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 12:45:41 -0600
- To: "'David MacDonald'" <befree@magma.ca>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <00bd01c60fcc$bbd39af0$056fa8c0@NC6000BAK>
Why would someone want to read the "more" link if they had not read the
article to begin with.
The more link is just a "jump to more information on this" link. If you
hadn't read the article, why would the more link be of interest? Even
sighted persons would not know what more meant without reading the article.
and presumably (but not always) the more link presumes you have read the
first text.
When the "more" link is just the rest of the article. why would it need to
contain the full name of the article again? Especially when the page
contains a title, a sentence and the more link, it would seem ... overkill
to have it contain the title, a sentence and the title all over again with
"more on" added to it.
So I think you do have a good example. But I'm still looking for the rule
as to when it would make sense and when not. (Since I think someone will
come up with an example of "more" where it would be helpful.
Also - the question is how helpful. And why couldn't AT be programmed to
allow users to get information around a link with a simple keystroke for
those cases where the link all by itself did not give them enough
information. Sort of the same capability as people with vision. If a link
doesn't make sense to them they just look at the text preceding the link to
get its context.
This one has always torn me. I see the utility in some cases, but the lack
of utility in others. It can even make it very hard for people who are
blind to use something. For example
In a listing of books
A brief history of the United Kingdom, PDF, DOC
A brief history of the United States , PDF, DOC
A brief history of Time, PDF, DOC
Vs
A brief history of the United Kingdom - HTML
A brief history of the United Kingdom - PDF
A brief history of the United Kingdom - DOC
A brief history of the United States - HTML
A brief history of the United States - PDF
A brief history of the United States - DOC
A brief history of Time - HTML
A brief history of Time - PDF
A brief history of Time - DOC
It could take much longer.
Another example is the one cited above where you have a Title, a sentence
and More. Vs the title, a sentence, and the title again with "More on"
added to it. This would take much longer to listen to (especially with
long titles) if you were trying to get through the whole listing.
Presumably the one sentence is important to understanding the titles or they
wouldn't be there - so a listing of just the More on links by themselves
would be of less value than the listing with sentences.
Just some thoughts.
Thanks for getting this going David. This is one we need to figure out.
And it has always eluded me.
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: Monday, January 02, 2006 8:04 AM
To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: SC 2.4.5, meaningful link text
At the risk of arguing against myself, I had just put forward the "more"
example as a possible exception because I've heard it mentioned, and I want
to make sure I looked at the issue from all angles. Having done that, I will
argue against the "more" link to say that most vision impaired people do not
want it allowed, because it puts them at a disadvantage. Sighted people can
scan a page and easily select the "more" link they want. Meaningful link
text allows blind people to do this.
So unless someone else comes up with another example of a good exception to
meaningful text, I would say this should be entry in 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."
Then we don't get into the list of exceptions.
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 Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:04 AM
To: 'David MacDonald'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: 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
Received on Monday, 2 January 2006 18:46:12 UTC