Re: 2.4.4 Sample

Where is it quoted at WCAG 2 for this sample that their accessibility status is irrelevant , therefore I must comply with 2.4.4?


--- On Thu, 8/6/09, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:


From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Subject: Re: 2.4.4 Sample
To: "Chris Reeve" <chrisreeve15@yahoo.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Date: Thursday, August 6, 2009, 8:03 AM


Chris Reeve wrote:
> Scenario A:
>  If I had a link to http://www.illinois.gov/gov/intopportunities.htm#dunn and my link title was "State of Illonis - Pat Quinn, Governor". they already complied with 2.4.4 for the requirement for downlodable material.

Their compliance with 2.4.4 is irrelevant.

You are responsible for compliance, but we would have to know why you included that link before we could say whether you were compliant.

If your page was entitled "A List of Senior US Elected Officials", your link might be adequate, when referring to an HTML document.  If the link pointed to a link to a PDF document without an associated, significant, HTML abstract, you should have linked the PDF directly, which would make you responsible for any warnings about the nature of the content.  A significant abstract is one that would either satisfy many users' needs without recourse to the full PDF document, or would satisfy realistic questions about whether or not they needed the full information.)

If your page contained names of both supporters and objectors to a project, you might need to indicate whether they were a supporter or objector in the link text.


-- David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.