- From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 10:13:11 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <200601051513.k05FDCSq003299@mail4.magma.ca>
>>>And is there a way to get to links without having to tab all the way
down?
Yes, it is the links list view. Every major screen reader has that function.
The reason for that is that it is useful and it compensates for what seeing
people do effortlessly. The links list view works because of our 1.0
Guideline 13.1 Priority 2. Although I don't think of it as pulling
information
>>> If you have a list of links- can't you jump to the location of a link in
the text?
This is not possible in Jaws, WindowEyes, or HPR. The list of links does not
take the user to the link text, but rather it takes the user to the
destination of the link.
>>If not, couldn't you?
Besides the programming difficulties involved in creating a function in AT
that would do this (which are not trivial), the concept does not make sense
to me. If there is a list of "Click here" links, how would someone know
which one they wanted to select in order to jump to it and find out more
information about its destination? Once at the link text they would need to
press keys combinations several times in succession to find the words
surrounding the text, and then cursor back to the link and then select it to
be taken to its destination.
>> I would like to see easy access to links at a high level, but if we make
link access require verbose links then I think it will have to be at level
3.
I don't think meaningful link text necessarily means verbose text. I don't
know why we would have to move it to level 3. Unlike many other issues that
we have had to revisit in the 2.0 Guidelines, I would say the conditions
that were present that prompted the 1.0 Guidelines committee to include that
guideline 13.1 (requiring meaningful link text) at Priority 2 have not
significantly changed. Links are still the major way to surf the net, and
the difficulties around "click here" links have not changed either I would
say.
.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: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:40 PM
To: 'David MacDonald'; 'Ben Caldwell'; 'Jason White'
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: SC 2.4.5, meaningful link text
Hi David,
I like adding the exception - but i think it should be broader than this
one example. This is exception by item and is not good. There are others
I'm sure. You identified one yourself. We need to find out what it is
about these that makes them viable exceptions and capture the concept.
Also, can those who use screen readers regularly comment on a couple things.
One - use of key combinations is made out to be very difficult. I presume
key combinations are used regularly in screen readers. Also, control shift
arrowkey doesn't sound like a twist of wrist to me. I use it all the time.
And is there a way to get to links without having to tab all the way down?
If you have a list of links- can't you jump to the location of a link in the
text? If not, couldn't you?
I would like to see easy access to links at a high level, but if we make
link access require verbose links then I think it will have to be at level
3.
Thoughts?
Thanks
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: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 6:28 PM
To: 'Ben Caldwell'; 'Jason White'
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: SC 2.4.5, meaningful link text
The editor's note on 2.4.5 asks us to comment about how closely link text
should be associated with text describing the destination. Below I will
provide the requested comments and then a recommendation:
In order for a person using JAWS to access the words around a link they need
to TAB to the link and press INSERT + LEFT ARROW or INSERT + RIGHT ARROW. In
Home Page Reader (HPR) it requires SHIFT+CONTROL+LEFT (or RIGHT) ARROW. In
WindowEyes it requires the same SHIFT+CONTROL+LEFT (or RIGHT) ARROW.
My experience as someone who works in the field of ergonomics, as well as
providing Assistive Devices accommodation, is that the incidence of
repetitive strain injury (RSI) is higher among screen reader users than in
the general population of computer users. Forcing blind users to make
unnecessary extra combinations of keystrokes, is not fair I would say. This
may not be as big an issue for our young blind users. But over the years the
extra wear and tear on their elbows, wrists and hands will often take their
toll. I have seen this. Assistive Technology is supposed to overcome
disability, not cause it.
It also takes extra time to TAB and twist the hands to hit INSERT + LEFT
(RIGHT) ARROW or CTL +SHIFT +ARROW.
There is nothing more important on the internet than links, it is what makes
it the internet. Sighted users effortlessly visually skim the page for the
links they want. (often with no key strokes)Why would we want to force blind
users to risk cumulative Repetitive Strain Injury over the years (hundreds
of thousands of extra keystokes) when it is such a fundamental part of what
the web is all about? I don't think this is about taking the links out of
context, anymore than zooming into a small part of a page with a screen
magnifier is taking information out of context. I don't know why we would
want to make it harder for AT users to compensate for what sighted people do
effortlessly.
It is not hard to create meaningful text links, as long as we allow
exceptions for arrays of links. Explicit meaningful text is priority 2 in
the 1.0 Guidelines. I think there will be quite a big price if we let this
slide off the table in the 2.0 Guidelines.
Therefore, for these reasons and others, I think we should be fostering a
culture of meaningful link text.
*Recommendation*
SC 2.4.5
<current>
Each programmatic reference to another delivery unit or to another location
in the same delivery unit, is associated with text describing the
destination.
</current>
<proposed>
Each programmatic reference to another delivery unit or to another location
in the same delivery unit, is programmatically associated with text
describing the destination, unless it is part of an array of programmatic
references to different versions (or views) of the same information.
</proposed>
Regards
David MacDonald
.Access empowers people
.barriers disable them.
www.eramp.com
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Ben Caldwell
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 5:39 PM
To: Jason White
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: SC 2.4.5, meaningful link text
Jason White wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 12:45:41PM -0600, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>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.
>
> Do GUI screen readers make this hard? Under all of the Unix text browsers
I
> use, and with both braille and speech assistive technologies it's trivial
to
> read the line containing the link, the lines before and after, etc. As a
> result, this has never struck me as a concern. At most it's a couple of
> seconds of extra work to read the context. I tend to read the text of
> unfamiliar pages anyway, rather than just reading links, so for my usage
> pattern the problem rarely arises. With familiar pages I use the "text
search"
> function of whichever user agent I'm running to get straight to the
desired
> point without having to navigate to it.
>
> I suspect it's the kind of problem that affects some user agent/assistive
> technology combinations more than others, and some people more than
others.
My understanding is that reading the text that surrounds a link in GUI
screen readers is not at all difficult. It is true that when a user
pulls up a list of links on a page, surrounding text would no longer be
available, but I don't believe this is something we should be concerned
with as this is a case of a UA feature that re-displays the content
outside of its original context.
David, can you clarify where you recommend including this? I assume your
proposed text (Provide meaningful link text, unless the link is part of
an array of links to different versions (or views) of the same
information.) is a technique, but it is phrased like a success
criterion. If the former, would this be advisory or sufficient?
-Ben
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2006 15:13:29 UTC