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

Re: Page length and number of links

From: Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:45:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CA++-QFcQwZ0GQZDBY4ELj7fDCOBDmg6OHzgKRbP0ZZdgUtPy=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
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

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