W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2012

Limit on the links in a page

From: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 21:07:32 +0800
To: W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8AFA77741B11DB47B24131F1E38227A9CAB0E4C9FA@XCHG-MS1.ads.ecu.edu.au>
Hi all

I was having a discussion with a colleage about the number of links on pages and how that poses a burden on users of screen readers in particular.  One page recently had over 2000 links which, if you were using a screen reader and trying to find your way around via the links, would be incredibly frustrating.  It also caused the automatic tool being used to verify results to fall over and surrender.

We wondered if there is any mention in WCAG of the need to limit the links.  I couldn't find anything, but some of you might know the answer to this.


Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(cs)
PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
Mob: 0415 383 673

This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the original message.
From: Chaals McCathieNevile [w3b@chaals.com]
Sent: Thursday, 9 August 2012 8:10 PM
To: W3C WAI ig; Harry Loots
Subject: Re: does alternate version comply with SC 2.1

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:10:27 +0200, Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>

> ... by being forced to use the table, [users] are denied the advantages
> offered by the timeline (e.g.: context, comparison at a glance, etc).

I think that pretty much explains the issue.

Is it clear that to use a keyboard you have to find the alternative
version? How hard is it to make the thing respond to keyboard control?

It seems your developer is proposing something that probably technically
fulfils the minimum possible requirement, but is really second-rate (to
almost avoid saying "half-arsed amateurish") work.

If you're prepared to pay for that, the developer can probably justify it
as acceptable. If this is truly the scenario, please let me know who the
project team is so I don't risk hiring them.



Chaals - standards declaimer

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of the information provided.

Received on Thursday, 9 August 2012 13:11:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:41 UTC