W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Page length and number of links

From: <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:45:54 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jamal Mazrui <empower@smart.net>
cc: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1306210943410.22062@cygnus.smart.net>

I kinda prefer a one paragraph summary and as many different like "things" 
on one page with a "read more" type of link, but I want that link to be 
one page, whole thing, unless it is a book in which case chapters is ok.


On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Jamal Mazrui wrote:

> Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 09:38:39 -0400
> From: Jamal Mazrui <empower@smart.net>
> To: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
> Cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Page length and number of links
> Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:39:24 +0000
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Actually, As a screen reader user, I usually prefer a long page with a 
> complete document rather than multiple pages.  This allows me to invoke a 
> screen reader feature that reads continuously without interruption.  It also 
> allows me to do global searches on the whole document.
> For example, when reading a newspaper or magazine article, I always search 
> initially for a "print" or "single page" view.  Otherwise, it can be quite 
> tedious to navigate to the next page and isolate the main content again.  I 
> think a lot of blind people share this perspective.
> I do understand that sighted people or people with other disabilities have 
> different usability considerations.
> Jamal
> On 6/21/2013 6:26 AM, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
>> Thanks for that Morten.
>> I agree, in that less is usually better.  For some reason people seem to 
>> think they have to put everything on 1 page - often on the home page. 
>> They don't think about how tedious and often difficult it is for the user 
>> to find the information they need.
>> Regards
>> 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.
>> v.conway@ecu.edu.au
>> v.conway@webkeyit.com
>> 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: Morten Tollefsen [morten@medialt.no]
>> Sent: Friday, 21 June 2013 6:17 PM
>> To: Patrick H. Lauke; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>> Subject: SV: Page length and number of links
>> Hi!
>> I agree with Patrick, and this is a classic usability topic. General 
>> answers do not excist, at least the target group and type of content is 
>> important. Steve Krug has some quite good usability statements (in the 
>> book Don't make me think):
>> 1. Don't make me think
>> 2. It doesn't matter how many times I have to click, as long as each click 
>> is a mindless unambiguous choice.
>> 3. Get rid of half the words on each page. Then get rid of half of whats 
>> left.
>> As Patrick write: "... though it may make their experience far more 
>> tedious" is of course correct (and this is probably the reason why you 
>> asked this question). An example is a page with hundreds of links without 
>> any local page jumps: possible to use with a keyboard, but not efficient 
>> for the keyboard youser.
>> Morten Tollefsen
>> www.medialt.no, +47 908 99 305
>> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
>> Fra: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk]
>> Sendt: 21. juni 2013 11:31
>> Til: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>> Emne: Re: Page length and number of links
>> On 21/06/2013 09:55, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
>>> I'm looking for a bit of advice about the appropriate maximum length
>>> of a page and number of links on pages.  We recently came across a
>>> page that seems to go on forever and can't see any of the guidelines
>>> that actually deals with this issue.  The page is poorly divided up
>>> and that obviously comes under headings etc.
>>> Also, wondering if anyone has any 'best practice' links on both this
>>> and the number of links that a page should limit itself to.  If you
>>> think either of these violates WCAG 2, I'd really like to hear how and 
>>> why.
>> This sounds to me like more of a general usability issue rather than a 
>> specific accessibility one (as overly long pages will likely affect all 
>> users, not just specifically users with disabilities, though it may make 
>> their experience far more tedious). And no, there doesn't seem to be 
>> anything specific in WCAG 2.0 on this matter.
>> It's difficult to say what length a page should be..."as long as it needs 
>> to be" is possibly the only advice I could give.
>> If this was part of an audit, I'd add it as a general remark about 
>> usability.
>> Sorry, not very helpful I guess...
>> P
>> --
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, 
>> re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
>> www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com 
>> | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ 
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke 
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> 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.
>> CRICOS IPC 00279B
Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 13:46:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:49 UTC