RE: Your definition of WCAG2.0 conformance

Thanks Michael.
All very good points and was thinking along the same lines.

The link scenario is a bit unique that's why I included it. I was thinking more on the lines of phishing scams, as screen readers do not read out the URL a link is linking to in the content, but they read out the address field of the user agent (default setting on JAWs).
So was thinking wouldn't that be confusing to have a URL not matching the page title? Or even reaching a page you weren't expecting to arrive at?

But I agree. Most people rarely enter URLs past the domain. Even for myself, I mostly just type one more level down like cos that's the landing page for it.


Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Michael A. Peters<>
Sent: ‎3/‎2/‎2015 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: Your definition of WCAG2.0 conformance

On 03/02/2015 03:13 AM, Oscar Cao wrote:
> Hello all
> I have been thinking for the past few days.
> Some people don’t care about coding standards, their view of conformance
> is: as long as keyboard users and blind users are catered for, they’re
> conformant.

I don't know what some people's ideas of conformance is, but my idea is
of accessible is that whatever can be done to make the experience for
those with "impairments" as close as possible to the experience for
"bulk users" as possible should be done.

That's why, for example, the very first link on a page should point to
main content. I can visually skip over other stuff with my eyes and I
usually do, so the first link should make it easy for someone in a non
visual browser to do the same - and stuff like that I would have never
even thought about if it weren't for WCAG.

I think it is sad that Google, Bing, etc. all have web master tools that
check for usability but don't bother to check for stuff like that.

And that's what I see as the purpose of all this, helping people like me
who want to accommodate everyone understand what the issues are, because
it is difficult to guess what they are unless I am told.

> This has prompted me to think – what about the visual user, power user,
> everyone else? Since there’s nowhere in WCAG2.0 that mentions anything
> that covers us – the bulk of the users that do not have any known
> impairments as such.

That's not it's function, and there are plenty of well funded utilities
to check how well the UI is for the bulk of users.

> I started thinking about user-friendly URIs. For my personal sites, I
> will not accept anything less than user-friendly/search engine-optimised
> URIs. Would you consider a site that does not have any clear structure
> (i.e. the entire site’s pages sits on the root folder, even though the
> navigation shows them as below another page). Or having URIs with upper
> and lowercase letters mixed (assuming they’ve configured the server to
> ignore the casing in the URIs). Or URIs with joined words like:
> Keeping in mind
> that, all the references within the website works.

I almost never type in a URL manually anymore. If I did not follow a
hyperlink in, then either I can easily get to where I'm going from the
homepage or I leave. The structure beyond the home page doesn't matter
to me.


Received on Monday, 2 March 2015 13:10:09 UTC