Re: Redundant instruction in titles damaging accessibility

Hi Alan,
I agree that version 2 is better. Most resources provide general guidance
advising to keeping descriptions concise. The heading "Topics" does imply
that a list of topics could be expected to follow.

I once had a working session with a customer who is blind. He was
experiencing challenges with a webpage and in response to the descriptive
text, I said to me, "I am blind, not stupid." That has always stayed with
me when it comes to copy. I found sharing that sometimes helps people
better understand that while well-meaning sometimes it can be too much.

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 5:25 PM Bristow, Alan <Alan.Bristow@elections.ca>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Focusing on the text of the H2, does anyone have something specific I can
> reference in support of my position that the v1 example is worse due to:
>
> a). verbosity: unnecessary title text resulting in less rather than more
> clarity
>
> b). breaking with an established pattern: all other cases of anchor link
> navigation in the site avoid verbose unnecessary additional title text
>
> Note: V1 and V2 examples comprise identical unstyled H2s followed by
> unstyled UL > LI > A anchor links. Markup conforming to best practices.
>
> V1
> - - -
> Topics - select from the following menu
>
> News
> Sport
> Culture
> Arts
> Travel
>
>
> v2
> - - -
> Topics
>
> News
> Sport
> Culture
> Arts
> Travel
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any comments.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> Alan Bristow ( he / him / il )
>
> Web Developer / Développeur Web
>
> Accessibility / Infographics
>
> Elections Canada / Élections Canada
>
> alan.bristow@elections.ca
>
>
>