- From: Tim <dogstar27@optushome.com.au>
- Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 14:32:46 +1000
- To: "'WAI Interest Group list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
May I protest about the posting of private emails to this group that were never addressed to it. If a member sends another member an email intended to help them, it is deliberately not sent to the entire group. How can someone quote another person's email in a critical fashion to a group the author did not intend to receive it. We have privacy laws in Australia, does that apply here, or can I send to the whole group any email any member has sent me? Tim On 08/08/2009, at 2:20 PM, Chris Reeve wrote: > Jonathan, last week I got a different response that it is my > responsibility and linking to the HTML page that contains PDF's is not > valid. Linking to the PDF's is a must. This is my link type > > 1. Directly to the PDF's, (some destination sites already met 2.4.4 by > specifying file size and file type on their server). I was advised > their accessibillity critieria does not matter. I still need to meet > 2.4.4. > 2. "Trying" to link to their html/text version (if available) to avoid > the issue > 3. Linking to a page when the site revised a document and split > one PDF into two or more PDF's. > > If #1 is applicable, what should I do? > > If # 2 is applicable, what should I do? > > If # 3 is applicable what should I do? > > Also, can I avoid specification of file size and type (as suggested in > G189) and use the alt tag (specified in H30)? > > --- On Sat, 8/8/09, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote: >> >> From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> >> Subject: RE: Text links 2.4.4 with PDF's (Sample document) (and one >> link or multiple links to the destination) >> To: "'Chris Reeve'" <chrisreeve15@yahoo.com> >> Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 1:58 AM >> >> >> If you are linking to their HTML page you do not need to indicate >> file size or file type of links from that page, that is not your >> responsibility. If you are linking to PDF files on their site then >> you should but probably are not required to indicate in link txt or >> alt text that link is to a PDF file. There are some people on these >> lists who will tell you otherwise because they make assertions about >> WCAG 2 that are not correct. >> >> >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> >> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On >> Behalf Of Chris Reeve >> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 10:02 PM >> To: Richard Warren; Phill Jenkins >> Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick; Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; >> lorettaguarino@google.com >> Subject: Re: Text links 2.4.4 with PDF's (Sample document) (and one >> link or multiple links to the destination) >> >> >> >> Please take a look at >> http://www.illinois.gov/gov/intopportunities.htm#dunn. It states the >> size of the document and the file type. I was advised if I link to >> this page, their accessibility status "does not matter". I was >> advised I need to duplicated file type in my text link. However, >> today I saw at >> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/navigation-mechanisms- >> refs.html H30, Example 5. It allows users to emphasize the file type >> in an alt tag, but G189 at >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G189 requires >> users to emphasizes the file type. >> >> >> >> I was advised if I do not comply with G189, I would have an illegal >> website. My boss is against G189, but is for H30, because H30 does >> not require a visible change in the text links. >> >> >> >> When I adopted G189, I adopted C7, hiding text links. Furthermore, I >> was advised that the use of C7 was illegal for this scenario. >> >> >> >> Can I use H30 and ignore G189? >> >> >> >> Also, the "acutal State website" I linked used to have one PDF. >> They split their PDF into three PDF's and a ZIP. >> >> >> >> Scenaro A: Today Pay Quinn has four PDF's on the page I sent to you. >> >> >> >> Scenario B: "If" their internship forms two years ago was only one >> PDF, and "if WCAG 2 was the rule, not 1.0", what would be required >> for based on 2.4.4 for PDF's for downloable documents? >> >> >> >> Reason: The actual state site I am linking to split one PDF onto >> multiple PDF's. >> >> >> >> Does this mean that my page requires me to have multiple text links >> for each PDF, or is there a workaround? (example of one possible >> workaround is to link to, >> http://www.illinois.gov/gov/intopportunities.htm#dunn) >> >> >> >> Gregg and Loretta, they (Phil, Richard, Andrew, and others from >> w3c-wai-ig@w3,org) cannot reach an agreement on this issue. >> >> >> >> Each has their own opinion. >> >> >> >> Can each of you cc each other privately with Gregg and Loretta in >> the string until conseus is achieved, or Gregg can you >> terminate these individiduals from membership? >> >> >> >> --- On Sat, 8/8/09, 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: "Richard Warren" <richard@userite.com> >>> Cc: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "Gregg Vanderheiden" >>> <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org >>> Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 12:49 AM >>> >>> >>> > . . . particular link is to open a PDF reader or a new window if >>> you have a modern browser. This is different to the default (HTML) >>> >>> true >>> >>> > so needs to be clearly specified within the link text so that >>> assistive software . . . >>> >>> Not in my opinion, the developer/author it is not required to add >>> the doc type with text. 2.4.4 includes the phrase "or from the link >>> text together with its programmatically determined link context." >>> >>> if the doc type is available programmatically, then I believe that >>> meets 2.4.4. Personally I can't justify why the doc type, size or >>> anything else is required ALL the time when its available if I want >>> it. It is definitely confusing to some user and requiring it in the >>> text is starting to border on reading the source HTML code, ugh. >>> >>> 'context' here is ALSO to be considered, so that if the purpose of >>> the link is to, perhaps, download a file, then that should be >>> available in the context to meet 2.4.4, not necessarily in the text >>> of the link itself. . >>> >>> >Try following a PDF link when using Lynx. >>> >>> Does anything happen differently to a user with or without a >>> disability, with or without a screen reader using LYNX? >>> I would suspect not, so how is it an accessibility issue? although >>> I agree it is an equally bad issue for everyone using LYNX. >>> >>> Remember too that H30 is a 'sufficient' technique, not a 'required' >>> technique. And I agree that "including the PDF icon in the link >>> text (with appropriate alt tag)" could just as easily be done by >>> adding the '(PDF)' text string but I believe usability studies show >>> that adding icons make is easier for sighted user with cognitive >>> disabilities, so I personally would recommend the icon with alt >>> attribute. >>> >>> >. . . level AAA we have 3.2.5 Change on Request: . . . Here change >>> of context includes . . . changing from a web-browser to Acrobat >>> Reader >>> >>> yes >>> >>> >. . . So we need to warn the user that there will be a change of >>> context if the link is selected. >>> >>> Not in my opinion. Most all links cause context changes. A new >>> page is also a change of context. The point of the requirement is >>> that the user needs to initiate the change, that it NOT happen >>> without the user's request i.e, clicking the link. The "warning: is >>> only needed in my opinion if additional or un requested changes >>> occur - for example, the server will disconnect after 20 minutes of >>> inactivity - that is the issue. >>> >>> > So, although the WAI guidelines do not categorically state that >>> "you should include any non-html format in the link text" >>> >>> Correct, and that is on purpose I believe >>> >>> > it is clearly implied and demonstrated throughout the >>> documentation . . . Exactly how you indicate the format is up to the >>> author. but the ... logo or the file format extension (PDF, DOC, PPT >>> etc.) should be adequate >>> >>> I agree it is used often in the guidelines, but it is not implying >>> that file type is required. It is implying that when you have 3 >>> similar links together that go to different places, a sufficient >>> (but not required) way to do it is with the 3 icons or additional >>> file type in the link text. Maybe we need more or better >>> techniques. But we still give the developer/author some flexibility >>> and the standards writers some future capability to share new and >>> improved examples. Wouldn't it be "easier and more accessible" for >>> me to set a setting in my browser or AT to always give me my >>> preferred format when there is a choice? DO I want the CSS version >>> for printing or the PDF version for printing? maybe I don't need to >>> even be confused with the choice if it really doesn't matter. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Phill Jenkins >>> The Editor Heretic Press http://www.hereticpress.com Email dogstar27@optushome.com
Received on Saturday, 8 August 2009 04:39:34 UTC