Re: Text links 2.4.4 with PDF's

As it stands, my boss will allow me to adopt H30 Example 5, 
<a href="WMFP.pdf">
Woodend Music Festival Program
<img src="pdficon.gif" alt="PDF format"/>
</a>, because (PDF), (WORD), (HTML), (TEXT), (ZIP), or other formats are not a part of the text link.
They are part of the alt tag.
However, I am not authorized to adopt G189
<h1>Books for download</h1>
  <p><a href="books-full-links.html" >Full link Version</a></p>

  <ul>
  <li>The History of the Web: 
  <a href="history.docx" class="hist">Word</a>, 
  <a href="history.pdf" class="hist">PDF</a>, 
  <a href="history.html" class="hist">HTML</a>
  </li>
  ...
  </ul>

OR
 
 
<h1>Books for download</h1>
  <p><a href="books-short-links.html" >Short link Version</a></p>

  <ul>
  <li>The History of the Web: 
  <a href="history.docx" class="hist">The History of the Web(Word)</a>, 
  <a href="history.pdf" class="hist">The History of the Web(PDF<)/a>, 
  <a href="history.html" class="hist">The History of the Web(HTML)</a>
  </li>
  ...
  </ul>
<h1>Books for download</h1>
  <p><a href="books-short-links.html" >Short link Version</a></p>

  <ul>
  <li>The History of the Web: 
  <a href="history.docx" class="hist">The History of the Web(Word)</a>, 
  <a href="history.pdf" class="hist">The History of the Web(PDF<)/a>, 
  <a href="history.html" class="hist">The History of the Web(HTML)</a>
  </li>
  ...
  </ul>

 
When I posted the IRS and State of Illonis as a sample, I was advised that their text link is meaningless, and therefore, I must post a (PDF) format. 
 
As a follow up, I posted the question of the State of California? Do I need one seperate text link or three seperate text links?
 
Since I can use H30, but not G189, how does it effect 2.4.4.?  
 
Ignore references to Change on Request 3.2.5. 
 
If I have a reference to a site that contains a downlodable document, what are my options? G189 (PDF format), H30 (alt="PDF format), either, both, or none where there needs to be a correction? 
 
If I do not reply over the weekend, I will check my e-mail on Monday.
 
--- On Fri, 8/7/09, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com> wrote:




From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Text links 2.4.4 with PDF's
To: "WAI Interest Group" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date: Friday, August 7, 2009, 6:49 PM



Richard wrote: 

":...I only see a small portion of the screen at any one time and do not get a staus bar at the bottom (my whole screen is focused on a small area." 

True 

" I thus have no way of knowing that the link is to anything other than a HTML file." 

False.  Most all screen magnifiers and screen readers have a way, hot key, to jump and read the status line.  The status line is a known part of the user interface and its contents can be accessed.  Yes there are problems with so called moving content in the status line, but that is a different issue. 

So just as a sighted user can "move his eyes" and read the status line without moving the PC cursor, so can the AT user moves his reading cursor (a.k.a. point of regard) and read information without moving the PC cursor and move or jump back to the reading point where he last was.  Sure the sighted user may be able to "move his eyes quicker" but that is not the point either. The users using an AT is not anymore disadvantaged. 

"Now supposing I . . . have learning difficulties, or am just too impatient to check the bottom of the browser every time I select a link - well perhaps I am stretching the point here.  I am sure others can think of more, better examples." 

No I can't think of any better examples, except for mobile, which you discuss next. 

". . . if you are using a PDA or mobile phone does the destination file name appear on the screen? I think not (at least not on my daughters mobile). So here you can claim that everyone is disadvantaged equally"   

Yep. I agree you are making a point for usability for all users. 

"But in this case you would need to claim in your compliance certificate that the site was only to be used on mobile phone technology." 

Nope, because all the information is available equally to everyone, maybe not as usable as you would like, but accessible.  AND, there is plenty of argument for the opposite, to eliminate the file type or format - many users do not know the difference between HTML, PDF and Word - they just want to get the information.  They select the link and the new information is there to get.  Why should the author go through extra effort to confuse some users?  I personally agree with explaining the formats when given a set of choices, but often it really doesn't make any difference if it is PDF, Word, or HTML as long as it complies with accessibility guidelines, my AT supports it, and I have the plug-in installed, yada yada yada.. 
  
  
Regards,
Phill Jenkins,