E-mail List Archives
Thread: Generic Links
Number of posts in this thread: 18 (In chronological order)
From: David Ashleydale
Date: Tue, Oct 30 2012 11:02AM
Subject: Generic Links
No previous message | Next message →
Hi,
I'm trying to find a way to get rid of a generic "More" link on my site and
I'm looking for suggestions or examples. In a new design we are
contemplating, there are a bunch of links on the page that open in little
layers. So the link might say "Leadership and Governance", for example, and
when you click on it, a layer opens that has a "Leadership and Governance"
heading followed by an intro sentence or two and then a list of three links
in the Leadership and Governance part of the site. The last link in the
list is currently "More" which takes users to the Leadership and Governance
main page.
My first stab at getting rid of the More link was to just make the
"Leadership and Governance" heading into a link to the "Leadership and
Governance" page. My favorite link text is one that exactly matches the
title of the page it's going to. However, I realized that the word "More"
was serving a purpose -- it was indicating that there are more things on
the Leadership and Governance page than the three or four links that we're
showing in this little layer.
So my next attempt was putting "More: Leadership and Governance" at the
bottom of the layer, with "Leadership and Governance" as a link and the
word "More" just as plain text. But there is some resistance to repeating
the heading in every layer -- it starts with "Leadership and Governance" at
the top of the layer, then ends with "More: Leadership and Governance" at
the bottom -- too repetitive.
I'm almost coming to the conclusion that there is actually a case for
keeping the link as just "More" (as along as its context
can be programmatically determined, which I can do). But I would love to
find a way of getting rid of it, if possible.
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
David Ashleydale
From: Jared Smith
Date: Tue, Oct 30 2012 11:37AM
Subject: Re: Generic Links
← Previous message | Next message →
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM, David Ashleydale wrote:
> I'm trying to find a way to get rid of a generic "More" link on my site
I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and "click
here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
In short, I wouldn't worry a lot about "More" links.
> My first stab at getting rid of the More link was to just make the
> "Leadership and Governance" heading into a link to the "Leadership and
> Governance" page.
I think this is a great approach. It does have a minor disadvantage of
providing an extra link that goes to the same location as the "More"
link, but this is outweighed by the benefits of the informative link.
> So my next attempt was putting "More: Leadership and Governance" at the
> bottom of the layer, with "Leadership and Governance" as a link and the
> word "More" just as plain text.
One approach may be to make "More: Leadership and Governance" the
link, but visually hide the ": Leadership and Governance" text so it
is only read by screen readers.
> I'm almost coming to the conclusion that there is actually a case for
> keeping the link as just "More" (as along as its context
> can be programmatically determined, which I can do).
If the link makes sense and there's a good case for keeping it, why
fight a battle to get rid of it simply for the sake of compliance?
Jared
From: Lijewski, Lolly M (DHS)
Date: Tue, Oct 30 2012 1:01PM
Subject: Re: generic links
← Previous message | Next message →
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM, David Ashleydale wrote:
> I'm trying to find a way to get rid of a generic "More" link on my
> site
Why not just add the word, "Read," so the link is labeled, "Read more," If there is adequate context, this can work.
Lolly
Lolly Lijewski
Disability Services Division
Minnesota Department of Human Services
Work Phone: (651) 431-3218
Fax: (651) 431-7411
Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Building Address:
540 Cedar Street
St. Paul Minnesota 55155
Mailing Address:
PO Box 64967
St. Paul Minnesota 55164-0967
Caution: This e-mail and attached documents, if any, may contain information that is protected by state or federal law. E-mail containing private or protected information should not be sent over a public (non-secure) Internet unless it is encrypted pursuant to DHS standards. This e-mail should be forwarded only on a strictly need-to-know basis. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (1) notify the sender immediately, (2) do not forward the message, (3) do not print the message and (4) erase the message from your system
From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Tue, Oct 30 2012 4:30PM
Subject: Re: Generic Links
← Previous message | Next message →
>>At Level AA, "more" and "click
> here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
> impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
> requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
> are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
> In short, I wouldn't worry a lot about "More" links.
Well the key is "WCAG2's definition of context" and the context is
often not programmatically associated with the link via"same
sentence, paragraph, list item, the heading immediately preceding the
link, or table cell as the link, or in the table header cell for a
link".
So where the Click here / More / Read more links are outside the
sentence / paragraph or the containing data table is not marked up
properly or there no h<n> tags above the link, the link will fail SC
2.4.4 (AA)
And this is certainly not uncommon.
The Click here/Read more links are not generally "ambiguous to users
in general" in these cases as the context can be determined visually
... not via markup.
Regards,
Sailesh Panchang
www.deque.com
From: Lucy Greco
Date: Tue, Oct 30 2012 5:04PM
Subject: Re: generic links
← Previous message | Next message →
remember that screen reader users although we have many other ways to
look at a page we tend to only read in the links list most of my
students don't even use hedders to read a page can you make the title
of the artacle a link instad
On 10/30/12, Lijewski, Lolly M (DHS) < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM, David Ashleydale wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to find a way to get rid of a generic "More" link on my
>
>> site
>
>
> Why not just add the word, "Read," so the link is labeled, "Read more," If
> there is adequate context, this can work.
>
> Lolly
>
>
>
> Lolly Lijewski
> Disability Services Division
> Minnesota Department of Human Services
> Work Phone: (651) 431-3218
> Fax: (651) 431-7411
> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> Building Address:
> 540 Cedar Street
> St. Paul Minnesota 55155
>
> Mailing Address:
> PO Box 64967
> St. Paul Minnesota 55164-0967
>
> Caution: This e-mail and attached documents, if any, may contain information
> that is protected by state or federal law. E-mail containing private or
> protected information should not be sent over a public (non-secure) Internet
> unless it is encrypted pursuant to DHS standards. This e-mail should be
> forwarded only on a strictly need-to-know basis. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please: (1) notify the sender immediately, (2) do not forward the
> message, (3) do not print the message and (4) erase the message from your
> system
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >
--
Lucia Greco
Web Access Analyst
IST-Campus Technology Services
University of California, Berkeley
(510) 289-6008
http://webaccess.berkeley.edu
From: Jared Smith
Date: Tue, Oct 30 2012 6:29PM
Subject: Re: Generic Links
← Previous message | Next message →
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Sailesh Panchang wrote:
> So where the Click here / More / Read more links are outside the
> sentence / paragraph or the containing data table is not marked up
> properly or there no h<n> tags above the link, the link will fail SC
> 2.4.4 (AA)
Correct. These do occasionally occur, but would almost certainly
result in failure of at least a couple other higher priority success
criteria.
Jared
From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Wed, Oct 31 2012 10:46AM
Subject: Re: Generic Links
← Previous message | Next message →
Jared,
Sure, and fixing SC 1.3.1 issues for table / headings markup would
resolve SC 2.4.4 issues as well.
But there are cases when the Click here / More link is styled /
positioned differently ... outside the sentence or paragraph, and the
contextual text is not determinable programmatically. The heading,
say, "Press releases' or 'In the news' may not be enough to convey the
purpose of links to individual news items under it.
These links are not ambiguous to all in general and need to be
flagged as SC 2.4.4 violations.
Rightho,
Sailesh
On 10/30/12, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Sailesh Panchang wrote:
>
>> So where the Click here / More / Read more links are outside the
>> sentence / paragraph or the containing data table is not marked up
>> properly or there no h<n> tags above the link, the link will fail SC
>> 2.4.4 (AA)
>
> Correct. These do occasionally occur, but would almost certainly
> result in failure of at least a couple other higher priority success
> criteria.
>
> Jared
> > > >
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Wed, Oct 31 2012 3:48PM
Subject: Re: Generic Links
← Previous message | Next message →
> I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
> allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and "click
> here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
> impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
> requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
> are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
I am not sure about anybody else, but this doesn't set well with me.
While what Jared said is essentially coming from WCAG, I think it is a
complete contradiction on itself. On F36, which outlines the failures
of 2.4.4, (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/F63)
it says "If the user must leave the link to search for the context,
the context is not programmatically determined link context and this
failure condition occurs." I read this as if I am browsing a page via
just hitting tab (or pulling up a link list), versus by arrowing, I
should be able to know what every link does without reading the
sentence again. If my sentence was "click here for more details about
WCAG", and click here was the linking words, I would have to leave the
link to figure out where it went.
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM, David Ashleydale wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to find a way to get rid of a generic "More" link on my site
>
> I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
> allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and "click
> here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
> impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
> requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
> are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
>
> In short, I wouldn't worry a lot about "More" links.
>
>> My first stab at getting rid of the More link was to just make the
>> "Leadership and Governance" heading into a link to the "Leadership and
>> Governance" page.
>
> I think this is a great approach. It does have a minor disadvantage of
> providing an extra link that goes to the same location as the "More"
> link, but this is outweighed by the benefits of the informative link.
>
>> So my next attempt was putting "More: Leadership and Governance" at the
>> bottom of the layer, with "Leadership and Governance" as a link and the
>> word "More" just as plain text.
>
> One approach may be to make "More: Leadership and Governance" the
> link, but visually hide the ": Leadership and Governance" text so it
> is only read by screen readers.
>
>> I'm almost coming to the conclusion that there is actually a case for
>> keeping the link as just "More" (as along as its context
>> can be programmatically determined, which I can do).
>
> If the link makes sense and there's a good case for keeping it, why
> fight a battle to get rid of it simply for the sake of compliance?
>
> Jared
> > >
From: Elle
Date: Wed, Oct 31 2012 4:10PM
Subject: Re: Generic Links
← Previous message | Next message →
I'd like to hear people's opinions about using off-screen text to make the
link unique and to provide programmatic context. We have always recommended
providing context visually by proximity for sighted users and using a
hidden span tag that identifies the anchor text as unique for non-sighted
users. I'm interested, since I don't think anyone has mentioned this
method, if people think that this isn't satisfactory in meeting the
requirement. As far as I can tell, these two methods combined meet all
users' needs.
Cheers,
Elle
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
> > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and "click
> > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
> > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
> > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
> > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
>
> I am not sure about anybody else, but this doesn't set well with me.
> While what Jared said is essentially coming from WCAG, I think it is a
> complete contradiction on itself. On F36, which outlines the failures
> of 2.4.4, (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/F63)
> it says "If the user must leave the link to search for the context,
> the context is not programmatically determined link context and this
> failure condition occurs." I read this as if I am browsing a page via
> just hitting tab (or pulling up a link list), versus by arrowing, I
> should be able to know what every link does without reading the
> sentence again. If my sentence was "click here for more details about
> WCAG", and click here was the linking words, I would have to leave the
> link to figure out where it went.
>
> --
> Ryan E. Benson
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM, David Ashleydale wrote:
> >
> >> I'm trying to find a way to get rid of a generic "More" link on my site
> >
> > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
> > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and "click
> > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
> > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
> > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
> > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
> >
> > In short, I wouldn't worry a lot about "More" links.
> >
> >> My first stab at getting rid of the More link was to just make the
> >> "Leadership and Governance" heading into a link to the "Leadership and
> >> Governance" page.
> >
> > I think this is a great approach. It does have a minor disadvantage of
> > providing an extra link that goes to the same location as the "More"
> > link, but this is outweighed by the benefits of the informative link.
> >
> >> So my next attempt was putting "More: Leadership and Governance" at the
> >> bottom of the layer, with "Leadership and Governance" as a link and the
> >> word "More" just as plain text.
> >
> > One approach may be to make "More: Leadership and Governance" the
> > link, but visually hide the ": Leadership and Governance" text so it
> > is only read by screen readers.
> >
> >> I'm almost coming to the conclusion that there is actually a case for
> >> keeping the link as just "More" (as along as its context
> >> can be programmatically determined, which I can do).
> >
> > If the link makes sense and there's a good case for keeping it, why
> > fight a battle to get rid of it simply for the sake of compliance?
> >
> > Jared
> > > > > > > > > >
--
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast
and endless sea.
- Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
From: David Ashleydale
Date: Wed, Oct 31 2012 4:12PM
Subject: Re: Generic Links
← Previous message | Next message →
Ryan,
I always thought that sentence you quoted was kind of an outlier and didn't
really make sense to me when paired with the sentence right before it, "If
the context for the link is not in the same sentence, paragraph, list item,
or table cell as the link, then the user will not be able to find out where
the link is going with any ease. If the user must leave the link to search
for the context, the context is not programmatically determined link
context and this failure condition occurs."
To me, the first sentence says that having a "click here" link in the
middle of a sentence is fine because of the context provided by the
sentence, but then the second sentence kind of negates that by saying you
shouldn't have to leave the link to figure out what it's for. So I read the
second sentence as, "If the user must leave the link to search for the
context (except in the cases just listed),..."
After all 2.4.4 does state, "The purpose of each
link<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#linkpurposedef>; can
be determined from the link text alone or from the link text together with
its programmatically determined link
context<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#pdlinkcontextdef>;..."
So the link text alone doesn't have to work on its own in order to satisfy
this criteria.
But I agree they could have worded that second sentence better.
Thanks,
David
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
> > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and "click
> > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
> > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
> > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
> > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
>
> I am not sure about anybody else, but this doesn't set well with me.
> While what Jared said is essentially coming from WCAG, I think it is a
> complete contradiction on itself. On F36, which outlines the failures
> of 2.4.4, (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/F63)
> it says "If the user must leave the link to search for the context,
> the context is not programmatically determined link context and this
> failure condition occurs." I read this as if I am browsing a page via
> just hitting tab (or pulling up a link list), versus by arrowing, I
> should be able to know what every link does without reading the
> sentence again. If my sentence was "click here for more details about
> WCAG", and click here was the linking words, I would have to leave the
> link to figure out where it went.
>
> --
> Ryan E. Benson
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM, David Ashleydale wrote:
> >
> >> I'm trying to find a way to get rid of a generic "More" link on my site
> >
> > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
> > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and "click
> > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
> > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
> > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
> > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
> >
> > In short, I wouldn't worry a lot about "More" links.
> >
> >> My first stab at getting rid of the More link was to just make the
> >> "Leadership and Governance" heading into a link to the "Leadership and
> >> Governance" page.
> >
> > I think this is a great approach. It does have a minor disadvantage of
> > providing an extra link that goes to the same location as the "More"
> > link, but this is outweighed by the benefits of the informative link.
> >
> >> So my next attempt was putting "More: Leadership and Governance" at the
> >> bottom of the layer, with "Leadership and Governance" as a link and the
> >> word "More" just as plain text.
> >
> > One approach may be to make "More: Leadership and Governance" the
> > link, but visually hide the ": Leadership and Governance" text so it
> > is only read by screen readers.
> >
> >> I'm almost coming to the conclusion that there is actually a case for
> >> keeping the link as just "More" (as along as its context
> >> can be programmatically determined, which I can do).
> >
> > If the link makes sense and there's a good case for keeping it, why
> > fight a battle to get rid of it simply for the sake of compliance?
> >
> > Jared
> > > > > > > > > >
From: Jared Smith
Date: Wed, Oct 31 2012 4:22PM
Subject: Re: Generic Links
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Elle wrote:
> I'd like to hear people's opinions about using off-screen text to make the
> link unique and to provide programmatic context.
I mentioned this technique somewhere earlier in this thread and think
that it works very well. Care should always be taken when presenting
content only to screen reader users, but in this case I think it's a
great way to provide the link context that is already quite apparent
visually.
Jared
PS - Happy Halloween!
From: David Ashleydale
Date: Wed, Oct 31 2012 4:22PM
Subject: Re: Generic Links
← Previous message | Next message →
Elle,
Could you give a specific example of what you mean?
Thanks,
David
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Elle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I'd like to hear people's opinions about using off-screen text to make the
> link unique and to provide programmatic context. We have always recommended
> providing context visually by proximity for sighted users and using a
> hidden span tag that identifies the anchor text as unique for non-sighted
> users. I'm interested, since I don't think anyone has mentioned this
> method, if people think that this isn't satisfactory in meeting the
> requirement. As far as I can tell, these two methods combined meet all
> users' needs.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Elle
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >wrote:
>
> > > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
> > > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and "click
> > > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> > > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
> > > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
> > > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
> > > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
> >
> > I am not sure about anybody else, but this doesn't set well with me.
> > While what Jared said is essentially coming from WCAG, I think it is a
> > complete contradiction on itself. On F36, which outlines the failures
> > of 2.4.4, (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/F63)
> > it says "If the user must leave the link to search for the context,
> > the context is not programmatically determined link context and this
> > failure condition occurs." I read this as if I am browsing a page via
> > just hitting tab (or pulling up a link list), versus by arrowing, I
> > should be able to know what every link does without reading the
> > sentence again. If my sentence was "click here for more details about
> > WCAG", and click here was the linking words, I would have to leave the
> > link to figure out where it went.
> >
> > --
> > Ryan E. Benson
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM, David Ashleydale wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm trying to find a way to get rid of a generic "More" link on my
> site
> > >
> > > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
> > > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and "click
> > > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> > > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
> > > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
> > > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
> > > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
> > >
> > > In short, I wouldn't worry a lot about "More" links.
> > >
> > >> My first stab at getting rid of the More link was to just make the
> > >> "Leadership and Governance" heading into a link to the "Leadership and
> > >> Governance" page.
> > >
> > > I think this is a great approach. It does have a minor disadvantage of
> > > providing an extra link that goes to the same location as the "More"
> > > link, but this is outweighed by the benefits of the informative link.
> > >
> > >> So my next attempt was putting "More: Leadership and Governance" at
> the
> > >> bottom of the layer, with "Leadership and Governance" as a link and
> the
> > >> word "More" just as plain text.
> > >
> > > One approach may be to make "More: Leadership and Governance" the
> > > link, but visually hide the ": Leadership and Governance" text so it
> > > is only read by screen readers.
> > >
> > >> I'm almost coming to the conclusion that there is actually a case for
> > >> keeping the link as just "More" (as along as its context
> > >> can be programmatically determined, which I can do).
> > >
> > > If the link makes sense and there's a good case for keeping it, why
> > > fight a battle to get rid of it simply for the sake of compliance?
> > >
> > > Jared
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood,
> divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast
> and endless sea.
> - Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
> > > >
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Wed, Oct 31 2012 4:26PM
Subject: Re: Generic Links
← Previous message | Next message →
David <a href="..">Click here<span class="offscreen'>to find about
WebAIM</span></a>.
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:22 PM, David Ashleydale < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Elle,
> Could you give a specific example of what you mean?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Elle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> I'd like to hear people's opinions about using off-screen text to make the
>> link unique and to provide programmatic context. We have always recommended
>> providing context visually by proximity for sighted users and using a
>> hidden span tag that identifies the anchor text as unique for non-sighted
>> users. I'm interested, since I don't think anyone has mentioned this
>> method, if people think that this isn't satisfactory in meeting the
>> requirement. As far as I can tell, these two methods combined meet all
>> users' needs.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Elle
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
>> > > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and "click
>> > > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
>> > > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
>> > > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
>> > > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
>> > > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
>> >
>> > I am not sure about anybody else, but this doesn't set well with me.
>> > While what Jared said is essentially coming from WCAG, I think it is a
>> > complete contradiction on itself. On F36, which outlines the failures
>> > of 2.4.4, (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/F63)
>> > it says "If the user must leave the link to search for the context,
>> > the context is not programmatically determined link context and this
>> > failure condition occurs." I read this as if I am browsing a page via
>> > just hitting tab (or pulling up a link list), versus by arrowing, I
>> > should be able to know what every link does without reading the
>> > sentence again. If my sentence was "click here for more details about
>> > WCAG", and click here was the linking words, I would have to leave the
>> > link to figure out where it went.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ryan E. Benson
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM, David Ashleydale wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I'm trying to find a way to get rid of a generic "More" link on my
>> site
>> > >
>> > > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
>> > > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and "click
>> > > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
>> > > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
>> > > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
>> > > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
>> > > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
>> > >
>> > > In short, I wouldn't worry a lot about "More" links.
>> > >
>> > >> My first stab at getting rid of the More link was to just make the
>> > >> "Leadership and Governance" heading into a link to the "Leadership and
>> > >> Governance" page.
>> > >
>> > > I think this is a great approach. It does have a minor disadvantage of
>> > > providing an extra link that goes to the same location as the "More"
>> > > link, but this is outweighed by the benefits of the informative link.
>> > >
>> > >> So my next attempt was putting "More: Leadership and Governance" at
>> the
>> > >> bottom of the layer, with "Leadership and Governance" as a link and
>> the
>> > >> word "More" just as plain text.
>> > >
>> > > One approach may be to make "More: Leadership and Governance" the
>> > > link, but visually hide the ": Leadership and Governance" text so it
>> > > is only read by screen readers.
>> > >
>> > >> I'm almost coming to the conclusion that there is actually a case for
>> > >> keeping the link as just "More" (as along as its context
>> > >> can be programmatically determined, which I can do).
>> > >
>> > > If the link makes sense and there's a good case for keeping it, why
>> > > fight a battle to get rid of it simply for the sake of compliance?
>> > >
>> > > Jared
>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood,
>> divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast
>> and endless sea.
>> - Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
>> >> >> >>
> > >
From: David Ashleydale
Date: Wed, Oct 31 2012 4:34PM
Subject: Re: Generic Links
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks, Ryan.
I think the main problem I see with that technique is that it could be
confusing when sighted and non-sighted users speak to each other, like in a
customer service situation.
Customer: I can't get the WebAIM link to work.
Customer Service Rep: I'm sorry, which link are you talking about?
C: The link that says, "Click here to find out about WebAIM."
CSR: There is no such link on the page. There are a lot of links that just
say "Click here", maybe you mean one of those?
C: No, JAWS is clearly telling me that there is a link on this page that
says, "Click here to find out about WebAIM."
This is kind of a trivial example, but in general, it seems like showing
different people different text could be a source of confusion.
Thanks,
David
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> David <a href="..">Click here<span class="offscreen'>to find about
> WebAIM</span></a>.
>
> --
> Ryan E. Benson
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:22 PM, David Ashleydale < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
> > Elle,
> > Could you give a specific example of what you mean?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Elle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >
> >> I'd like to hear people's opinions about using off-screen text to make
> the
> >> link unique and to provide programmatic context. We have always
> recommended
> >> providing context visually by proximity for sighted users and using a
> >> hidden span tag that identifies the anchor text as unique for
> non-sighted
> >> users. I'm interested, since I don't think anyone has mentioned this
> >> method, if people think that this isn't satisfactory in meeting the
> >> requirement. As far as I can tell, these two methods combined meet all
> >> users' needs.
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Elle
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
> >> > > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and
> "click
> >> > > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> >> > > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
> >> > > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
> >> > > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
> >> > > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
> >> >
> >> > I am not sure about anybody else, but this doesn't set well with me.
> >> > While what Jared said is essentially coming from WCAG, I think it is a
> >> > complete contradiction on itself. On F36, which outlines the failures
> >> > of 2.4.4, (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/F63)
> >> > it says "If the user must leave the link to search for the context,
> >> > the context is not programmatically determined link context and this
> >> > failure condition occurs." I read this as if I am browsing a page via
> >> > just hitting tab (or pulling up a link list), versus by arrowing, I
> >> > should be able to know what every link does without reading the
> >> > sentence again. If my sentence was "click here for more details about
> >> > WCAG", and click here was the linking words, I would have to leave the
> >> > link to figure out where it went.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Ryan E. Benson
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM, David Ashleydale wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> I'm trying to find a way to get rid of a generic "More" link on my
> >> site
> >> > >
> >> > > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
> >> > > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and
> "click
> >> > > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> >> > > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
> >> > > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
> >> > > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
> >> > > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
> >> > >
> >> > > In short, I wouldn't worry a lot about "More" links.
> >> > >
> >> > >> My first stab at getting rid of the More link was to just make the
> >> > >> "Leadership and Governance" heading into a link to the "Leadership
> and
> >> > >> Governance" page.
> >> > >
> >> > > I think this is a great approach. It does have a minor disadvantage
> of
> >> > > providing an extra link that goes to the same location as the "More"
> >> > > link, but this is outweighed by the benefits of the informative
> link.
> >> > >
> >> > >> So my next attempt was putting "More: Leadership and Governance" at
> >> the
> >> > >> bottom of the layer, with "Leadership and Governance" as a link and
> >> the
> >> > >> word "More" just as plain text.
> >> > >
> >> > > One approach may be to make "More: Leadership and Governance" the
> >> > > link, but visually hide the ": Leadership and Governance" text so it
> >> > > is only read by screen readers.
> >> > >
> >> > >> I'm almost coming to the conclusion that there is actually a case
> for
> >> > >> keeping the link as just "More" (as along as its context
> >> > >> can be programmatically determined, which I can do).
> >> > >
> >> > > If the link makes sense and there's a good case for keeping it, why
> >> > > fight a battle to get rid of it simply for the sake of compliance?
> >> > >
> >> > > Jared
> >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood,
> >> divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the
> vast
> >> and endless sea.
> >> - Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
> >> > >> > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
From: Elle
Date: Wed, Oct 31 2012 5:50PM
Subject: Re: Generic Links
← Previous message | Next message →
@Jared:
Thank you for the input! I must have missed your making this point
earlier, I apologize. I'm personally a big fan of this technique. Even
though we discourage repetitive links during the design stage of a web page
when it doesn't add to the overall clarity of the page, this method can
also handle those times when it's better to have a clean design that
reduces the overall impact of a cluttered, varied list of links on a page
for users with cognitive issues.
@David:
I think your point is valid, but it could be mitigated with a bit of
training for Customer Service as a part of overall training for supporting
people with disabilities. For example, "When providing customer service,
please remember that occasionally we support screen reader users with
hidden text, especially in the case of repetitive links on a web page.
Examples include..."
Cheers,
Elle
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:34 PM, David Ashleydale < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> Thanks, Ryan.
>
> I think the main problem I see with that technique is that it could be
> confusing when sighted and non-sighted users speak to each other, like in a
> customer service situation.
>
> Customer: I can't get the WebAIM link to work.
> Customer Service Rep: I'm sorry, which link are you talking about?
> C: The link that says, "Click here to find out about WebAIM."
> CSR: There is no such link on the page. There are a lot of links that just
> say "Click here", maybe you mean one of those?
> C: No, JAWS is clearly telling me that there is a link on this page that
> says, "Click here to find out about WebAIM."
>
> This is kind of a trivial example, but in general, it seems like showing
> different people different text could be a source of confusion.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >wrote:
>
> > David <a href="..">Click here<span class="offscreen'>to find about
> > WebAIM</span></a>.
> >
> > --
> > Ryan E. Benson
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:22 PM, David Ashleydale < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > wrote:
> > > Elle,
> > > Could you give a specific example of what you mean?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Elle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'd like to hear people's opinions about using off-screen text to make
> > the
> > >> link unique and to provide programmatic context. We have always
> > recommended
> > >> providing context visually by proximity for sighted users and using a
> > >> hidden span tag that identifies the anchor text as unique for
> > non-sighted
> > >> users. I'm interested, since I don't think anyone has mentioned this
> > >> method, if people think that this isn't satisfactory in meeting the
> > >> requirement. As far as I can tell, these two methods combined meet all
> > >> users' needs.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Elle
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ryan E. Benson <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG
> 2.0
> > >> > > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and
> > "click
> > >> > > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> > >> > > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
> > >> > > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the
> context
> > >> > > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links
> that
> > >> > > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
> > >> >
> > >> > I am not sure about anybody else, but this doesn't set well with me.
> > >> > While what Jared said is essentially coming from WCAG, I think it
> is a
> > >> > complete contradiction on itself. On F36, which outlines the
> failures
> > >> > of 2.4.4, (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/F63
> )
> > >> > it says "If the user must leave the link to search for the context,
> > >> > the context is not programmatically determined link context and this
> > >> > failure condition occurs." I read this as if I am browsing a page
> via
> > >> > just hitting tab (or pulling up a link list), versus by arrowing, I
> > >> > should be able to know what every link does without reading the
> > >> > sentence again. If my sentence was "click here for more details
> about
> > >> > WCAG", and click here was the linking words, I would have to leave
> the
> > >> > link to figure out where it went.
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Ryan E. Benson
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > wrote:
> > >> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM, David Ashleydale wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> I'm trying to find a way to get rid of a generic "More" link on
> my
> > >> site
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG
> 2.0
> > >> > > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and
> > "click
> > >> > > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> > >> > > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
> > >> > > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the
> context
> > >> > > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links
> that
> > >> > > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > In short, I wouldn't worry a lot about "More" links.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> My first stab at getting rid of the More link was to just make
> the
> > >> > >> "Leadership and Governance" heading into a link to the
> "Leadership
> > and
> > >> > >> Governance" page.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I think this is a great approach. It does have a minor
> disadvantage
> > of
> > >> > > providing an extra link that goes to the same location as the
> "More"
> > >> > > link, but this is outweighed by the benefits of the informative
> > link.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> So my next attempt was putting "More: Leadership and Governance"
> at
> > >> the
> > >> > >> bottom of the layer, with "Leadership and Governance" as a link
> and
> > >> the
> > >> > >> word "More" just as plain text.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > One approach may be to make "More: Leadership and Governance" the
> > >> > > link, but visually hide the ": Leadership and Governance" text so
> it
> > >> > > is only read by screen readers.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> I'm almost coming to the conclusion that there is actually a case
> > for
> > >> > >> keeping the link as just "More" (as along as its context
> > >> > >> can be programmatically determined, which I can do).
> > >> > >
> > >> > > If the link makes sense and there's a good case for keeping it,
> why
> > >> > > fight a battle to get rid of it simply for the sake of compliance?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Jared
> > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood,
> > >> divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the
> > vast
> > >> and endless sea.
> > >> - Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
--
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast
and endless sea.
- Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
From: David Ashleydale
Date: Wed, Oct 31 2012 6:00PM
Subject: Re: Generic Links
← Previous message | Next message →
Elle,
Yeah, that's a good idea -- training the reps.
Maybe this problem would be alleviated if the non-sighted user were made
aware that the text is actually hidden off-screen.
David
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Elle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> @Jared:
>
> Thank you for the input! I must have missed your making this point
> earlier, I apologize. I'm personally a big fan of this technique. Even
> though we discourage repetitive links during the design stage of a web page
> when it doesn't add to the overall clarity of the page, this method can
> also handle those times when it's better to have a clean design that
> reduces the overall impact of a cluttered, varied list of links on a page
> for users with cognitive issues.
>
> @David:
>
> I think your point is valid, but it could be mitigated with a bit of
> training for Customer Service as a part of overall training for supporting
> people with disabilities. For example, "When providing customer service,
> please remember that occasionally we support screen reader users with
> hidden text, especially in the case of repetitive links on a web page.
> Examples include..."
>
>
> Cheers,
> Elle
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:34 PM, David Ashleydale < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Ryan.
> >
> > I think the main problem I see with that technique is that it could be
> > confusing when sighted and non-sighted users speak to each other, like
> in a
> > customer service situation.
> >
> > Customer: I can't get the WebAIM link to work.
> > Customer Service Rep: I'm sorry, which link are you talking about?
> > C: The link that says, "Click here to find out about WebAIM."
> > CSR: There is no such link on the page. There are a lot of links that
> just
> > say "Click here", maybe you mean one of those?
> > C: No, JAWS is clearly telling me that there is a link on this page that
> > says, "Click here to find out about WebAIM."
> >
> > This is kind of a trivial example, but in general, it seems like showing
> > different people different text could be a source of confusion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > David <a href="..">Click here<span class="offscreen'>to find about
> > > WebAIM</span></a>.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan E. Benson
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:22 PM, David Ashleydale <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Elle,
> > > > Could you give a specific example of what you mean?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Elle < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I'd like to hear people's opinions about using off-screen text to
> make
> > > the
> > > >> link unique and to provide programmatic context. We have always
> > > recommended
> > > >> providing context visually by proximity for sighted users and using
> a
> > > >> hidden span tag that identifies the anchor text as unique for
> > > non-sighted
> > > >> users. I'm interested, since I don't think anyone has mentioned
> this
> > > >> method, if people think that this isn't satisfactory in meeting the
> > > >> requirement. As far as I can tell, these two methods combined meet
> all
> > > >> users' needs.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Cheers,
> > > >> Elle
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ryan E. Benson <
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > >> >wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG
> > 2.0
> > > >> > > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and
> > > "click
> > > >> > > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> > > >> > > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it
> nearly
> > > >> > > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the
> > context
> > > >> > > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links
> > that
> > > >> > > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I am not sure about anybody else, but this doesn't set well with
> me.
> > > >> > While what Jared said is essentially coming from WCAG, I think it
> > is a
> > > >> > complete contradiction on itself. On F36, which outlines the
> > failures
> > > >> > of 2.4.4, (
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/F63
> > )
> > > >> > it says "If the user must leave the link to search for the
> context,
> > > >> > the context is not programmatically determined link context and
> this
> > > >> > failure condition occurs." I read this as if I am browsing a page
> > via
> > > >> > just hitting tab (or pulling up a link list), versus by arrowing,
> I
> > > >> > should be able to know what every link does without reading the
> > > >> > sentence again. If my sentence was "click here for more details
> > about
> > > >> > WCAG", and click here was the linking words, I would have to leave
> > the
> > > >> > link to figure out where it went.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Ryan E. Benson
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM, David Ashleydale wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> I'm trying to find a way to get rid of a generic "More" link on
> > my
> > > >> site
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG
> > 2.0
> > > >> > > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and
> > > "click
> > > >> > > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> > > >> > > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it
> nearly
> > > >> > > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the
> > context
> > > >> > > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links
> > that
> > > >> > > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > In short, I wouldn't worry a lot about "More" links.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> My first stab at getting rid of the More link was to just make
> > the
> > > >> > >> "Leadership and Governance" heading into a link to the
> > "Leadership
> > > and
> > > >> > >> Governance" page.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I think this is a great approach. It does have a minor
> > disadvantage
> > > of
> > > >> > > providing an extra link that goes to the same location as the
> > "More"
> > > >> > > link, but this is outweighed by the benefits of the informative
> > > link.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> So my next attempt was putting "More: Leadership and
> Governance"
> > at
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >> bottom of the layer, with "Leadership and Governance" as a link
> > and
> > > >> the
> > > >> > >> word "More" just as plain text.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > One approach may be to make "More: Leadership and Governance"
> the
> > > >> > > link, but visually hide the ": Leadership and Governance" text
> so
> > it
> > > >> > > is only read by screen readers.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> I'm almost coming to the conclusion that there is actually a
> case
> > > for
> > > >> > >> keeping the link as just "More" (as along as its context
> > > >> > >> can be programmatically determined, which I can do).
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > If the link makes sense and there's a good case for keeping it,
> > why
> > > >> > > fight a battle to get rid of it simply for the sake of
> compliance?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Jared
> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather
> wood,
> > > >> divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for
> the
> > > vast
> > > >> and endless sea.
> > > >> - Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood,
> divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast
> and endless sea.
> - Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
> > > >
From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Thu, Nov 01 2012 8:55AM
Subject: Re: Generic Links
← Previous message | Next message →
Screen readers such as JAWS , Win-Eyes, VO do allow one to read
current sentence / para without requiring one to move focus away from
the link.
David ... also refer to my previous comments in this thread.
Also using off-screen text is more code / more work in this case which
can be avoided. I do not recommend it in this context. Use the AT's
feature to get the context. This applies to regular reading of the
page (sufficient for WCAG AA) and not to a links-list ... which is an
additional feature of the AT.
Sailesh
On 10/31/12, David Ashleydale < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Ryan,
> I always thought that sentence you quoted was kind of an outlier and didn't
> really make sense to me when paired with the sentence right before it, "If
> the context for the link is not in the same sentence, paragraph, list item,
> or table cell as the link, then the user will not be able to find out where
> the link is going with any ease. If the user must leave the link to search
> for the context, the context is not programmatically determined link
> context and this failure condition occurs."
>
> To me, the first sentence says that having a "click here" link in the
> middle of a sentence is fine because of the context provided by the
> sentence, but then the second sentence kind of negates that by saying you
> shouldn't have to leave the link to figure out what it's for. So I read the
> second sentence as, "If the user must leave the link to search for the
> context (except in the cases just listed),..."
>
> After all 2.4.4 does state, "The purpose of each
> link<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#linkpurposedef>; can
> be determined from the link text alone or from the link text together with
> its programmatically determined link
> context<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#pdlinkcontextdef>;..."
> So the link text alone doesn't have to work on its own in order to satisfy
> this criteria.
>
> But I agree they could have worded that second sentence better.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Ryan E. Benson
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
>
>> > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
>> > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and "click
>> > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
>> > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
>> > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
>> > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
>> > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
>>
>> I am not sure about anybody else, but this doesn't set well with me.
>> While what Jared said is essentially coming from WCAG, I think it is a
>> complete contradiction on itself. On F36, which outlines the failures
>> of 2.4.4, (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/F63)
>> it says "If the user must leave the link to search for the context,
>> the context is not programmatically determined link context and this
>> failure condition occurs." I read this as if I am browsing a page via
>> just hitting tab (or pulling up a link list), versus by arrowing, I
>> should be able to know what every link does without reading the
>> sentence again. If my sentence was "click here for more details about
>> WCAG", and click here was the linking words, I would have to leave the
>> link to figure out where it went.
>>
>> --
>> Ryan E. Benson
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM, David Ashleydale wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm trying to find a way to get rid of a generic "More" link on my
>> >> site
>> >
>> > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
>> > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and "click
>> > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
>> > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
>> > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
>> > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
>> > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
>> >
>> > In short, I wouldn't worry a lot about "More" links.
>> >
>> >> My first stab at getting rid of the More link was to just make the
>> >> "Leadership and Governance" heading into a link to the "Leadership and
>> >> Governance" page.
>> >
>> > I think this is a great approach. It does have a minor disadvantage of
>> > providing an extra link that goes to the same location as the "More"
>> > link, but this is outweighed by the benefits of the informative link.
>> >
>> >> So my next attempt was putting "More: Leadership and Governance" at
>> >> the
>> >> bottom of the layer, with "Leadership and Governance" as a link and
>> >> the
>> >> word "More" just as plain text.
>> >
>> > One approach may be to make "More: Leadership and Governance" the
>> > link, but visually hide the ": Leadership and Governance" text so it
>> > is only read by screen readers.
>> >
>> >> I'm almost coming to the conclusion that there is actually a case for
>> >> keeping the link as just "More" (as along as its context
>> >> can be programmatically determined, which I can do).
>> >
>> > If the link makes sense and there's a good case for keeping it, why
>> > fight a battle to get rid of it simply for the sake of compliance?
>> >
>> > Jared
>> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >>
> > > >
From: Patrick Dunphy
Date: Thu, Nov 01 2012 3:35PM
Subject: Re: Generic Links
← Previous message | No next message
With the use of offscreen text how would a user that utilizes voice
commands interact with said <a href="[URL]">Read More <span class="hidden">
about Topic X</span></a>?
On Nov 1, 2012 10:56 AM, "Sailesh Panchang" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> Screen readers such as JAWS , Win-Eyes, VO do allow one to read
> current sentence / para without requiring one to move focus away from
> the link.
> David ... also refer to my previous comments in this thread.
> Also using off-screen text is more code / more work in this case which
> can be avoided. I do not recommend it in this context. Use the AT's
> feature to get the context. This applies to regular reading of the
> page (sufficient for WCAG AA) and not to a links-list ... which is an
> additional feature of the AT.
> Sailesh
>
> On 10/31/12, David Ashleydale < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Ryan,
> > I always thought that sentence you quoted was kind of an outlier and
> didn't
> > really make sense to me when paired with the sentence right before it,
> "If
> > the context for the link is not in the same sentence, paragraph, list
> item,
> > or table cell as the link, then the user will not be able to find out
> where
> > the link is going with any ease. If the user must leave the link to
> search
> > for the context, the context is not programmatically determined link
> > context and this failure condition occurs."
> >
> > To me, the first sentence says that having a "click here" link in the
> > middle of a sentence is fine because of the context provided by the
> > sentence, but then the second sentence kind of negates that by saying you
> > shouldn't have to leave the link to figure out what it's for. So I read
> the
> > second sentence as, "If the user must leave the link to search for the
> > context (except in the cases just listed),..."
> >
> > After all 2.4.4 does state, "The purpose of each
> > link<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#linkpurposedef>; can
> > be determined from the link text alone or from the link text together
> with
> > its programmatically determined link
> > context<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#pdlinkcontextdef>;..."
> > So the link text alone doesn't have to work on its own in order to
> satisfy
> > this criteria.
> >
> > But I agree they could have worded that second sentence better.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Ryan E. Benson
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> >
> >> > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
> >> > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and "click
> >> > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> >> > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
> >> > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
> >> > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
> >> > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
> >>
> >> I am not sure about anybody else, but this doesn't set well with me.
> >> While what Jared said is essentially coming from WCAG, I think it is a
> >> complete contradiction on itself. On F36, which outlines the failures
> >> of 2.4.4, (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/F63)
> >> it says "If the user must leave the link to search for the context,
> >> the context is not programmatically determined link context and this
> >> failure condition occurs." I read this as if I am browsing a page via
> >> just hitting tab (or pulling up a link list), versus by arrowing, I
> >> should be able to know what every link does without reading the
> >> sentence again. If my sentence was "click here for more details about
> >> WCAG", and click here was the linking words, I would have to leave the
> >> link to figure out where it went.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ryan E. Benson
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM, David Ashleydale wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'm trying to find a way to get rid of a generic "More" link on my
> >> >> site
> >> >
> >> > I think the impact of such links is a bit overstated. Even WCAG 2.0
> >> > allows such links except at Level AAA. At Level AA, "more" and "click
> >> > here", etc. are allowed so long as the link makes sense in its
> >> > context, which based on WCAG's definition of this makes it nearly
> >> > impossible to fail. And in the cases where it would fail the context
> >> > requirement, it would almost certainly still pass because links that
> >> > are ambiguous to everyone are excluded.
> >> >
> >> > In short, I wouldn't worry a lot about "More" links.
> >> >
> >> >> My first stab at getting rid of the More link was to just make the
> >> >> "Leadership and Governance" heading into a link to the "Leadership
> and
> >> >> Governance" page.
> >> >
> >> > I think this is a great approach. It does have a minor disadvantage of
> >> > providing an extra link that goes to the same location as the "More"
> >> > link, but this is outweighed by the benefits of the informative link.
> >> >
> >> >> So my next attempt was putting "More: Leadership and Governance" at
> >> >> the
> >> >> bottom of the layer, with "Leadership and Governance" as a link and
> >> >> the
> >> >> word "More" just as plain text.
> >> >
> >> > One approach may be to make "More: Leadership and Governance" the
> >> > link, but visually hide the ": Leadership and Governance" text so it
> >> > is only read by screen readers.
> >> >
> >> >> I'm almost coming to the conclusion that there is actually a case for
> >> >> keeping the link as just "More" (as along as its context
> >> >> can be programmatically determined, which I can do).
> >> >
> >> > If the link makes sense and there's a good case for keeping it, why
> >> > fight a battle to get rid of it simply for the sake of compliance?
> >> >
> >> > Jared
> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > >