Re: Consistent ID (3.2.4), Link Purpose (2.4.4), and Multiple Ways (2.4.5)

Richard,
I don't see how you figure that not identifying a link as a different file type breaks any law, or accessibility guidelines. I don't believe this violates either wcag 2 or section 508 - there may be some other national policy that I'm not thinking of though, so can you elaborate?
Awk
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Senior Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe Systems
akirkpat@adobe.com

________________________________
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org ; Phill Jenkins
Sent: Tue Aug 04 16:34:57 2009
Subject: Re: Consistent ID (3.2.4), Link Purpose (2.4.4), and Multiple Ways (2.4.5)

Hi Chris,
". . . My boss does not want me to show "PDF", "Text", "Word", "Powerpoint", in the text link."

Then your boss will have a website that does not comply with the accessibility guidlines and he is breaking the law.

Blind people cannot see the whole page like sighted users, so in order to help them get an idea of what the page contains they list the headings and links on a page before they start reading the text. If they hear a link text that sounds interesting and do not know that the link is not to an HTML page they can have real trouble. So also can users who have slow connections or do not have the appropriate reader installed on their computer.

Any links to non-html pages must specify the document format, and if the document is more than a few KBs in size, you should also indicate how big it is. People can then avoid it if it might take too long or crash their system.

There is no option here. If you run a store with steps at the front and don't provide a ramp for wheelchair users you are denying them access to your store and are thus liable to prosecution. The same goes for a website.

If you need to persuade your boss of his responsibilities I suggest you point him to http://lflegal.com/category/settlements/web-accessibility-settlements/ where he can see that even big firms have to make accessibility a priority.

Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: Phill Jenkins<mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: Consistent ID (3.2.4), Link Purpose (2.4.4), and Multiple Ways (2.4.5)


Chris Reeve write:
". . . My boss does not want me to show "PDF", "Text", "Word", "Powerpoint", in the text link."

hmm, why do you want to hide the text "PDF", "Text", "Word", or "PowerPoint"?  Do not all users need to know which format they are clicking on?

Are you talking about replacing the text with icons for "PDF", "Text", "Word", or "PowerPoint"?

Or did you mean to say you want to hide the repetitive part of the resource title, such as "history of the Web" in the link text in more than one link such as "History of the Web in PDF format", "History of the Web in Word format", :"History of the Web in PowerPoint format", etc.?

Using technique C7 to hide the repetitive part only of the text in the resource title would seem to meet the success criteria to me for 2.4.9 Level AAA.
 C7 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/C7.html


My concern is that what is the measured benefit of using C7?  I would think (though I have no data) that the bigger problem is this and most examples is with the user's understanding of the difference between PDF, Word, and HTML.  Microsoft PowerPoint or any other presentation format would look and feel different, but kinda hard to tell the difference between the same content in PDF, Word or HTML - the only difference is usually in the chrome around the content.   I believe we offer different format types because many user do in fact know the difference and want that particular format for assumed reasons that are later verified upon downloading and examining the resource. In my opinion adding repetitive link text does NOT make the difference between the format types any clearer or help the user any more to decide which to click on.   Good thing 2.4.9 is level AAA.

Regards,
Phill Jenkins