- From: Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:45:27 +0200
- To: W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA++-QFcQwZ0GQZDBY4ELj7fDCOBDmg6OHzgKRbP0ZZdgUtPy=w@mail.gmail.com>
Wonderful to hear all the different viewpoints... I'm actually going to save this one in a folder and use some of the comments (anonymised) next time I have to argue for long pages and scrolling vs short pages and multiple clicks!!! Thank you all :) Harry On 24 June 2013 14:59, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote: > This is good news that the WCAG WG may consider creating a failure for > endless scrolling! Skittles.com is a good example of this. > > This failure may be a good place to start: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/F16 > > This sufficient technique could also be used as a bases for a failure. > http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/SCR33 > > Jonathan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 4:17 PM > To: Patrick H. Lauke; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > Subject: RE: Page length and number of links > > That's an interesting question. If you do think that there is a failure > whenever the scripting to load more content on a page is used, we should > have a failure technique for that - anyone who wants to write up a > technique > (failure or success types both ok!) can submit the technique at > http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/TECHS-SUBMIT/ > > Thanks, > AWK > > Andrew Kirkpatrick > Group Product Manager, Accessibility > Adobe Systems > > akirkpat@adobe.com > http://twitter.com/awkawk > http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk] > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 3:16 PM > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > Subject: Re: Page length and number of links > > On 21/06/2013 16:30, deborah.kaplan@suberic.net wrote: > > but I wonder what our > > recommendation from an accessibility standpoint should be about those > > pages which endlessly scroll using JavaScript, without anchors to > > particular places in the page, or the ability to use the back button > > to get back to where you were. > > Those likely already violate WCAG 2.0 in different ways, though off the top > of my head I'm not 100% sure which particular SCs. At the very least, there > should be a setting that disabled endless scroll and instead has a button > to > "Load more tweets" or whatever dynamically. > > 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 > ______________________________________________________________ > >
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 09:45:55 UTC