Re: Redundant instruction in titles damaging accessibility

*He said to me - hahah not "I" - haha

On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 10:34 AM caroline <woodward.caroline@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>