Thread Subject: Re: Web - Link purpose - harmonizationwithWCAG2.0

From: Barrett, Don
Date: Sat, Jun 23 2007 7:10 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Web - Link purpose - harmonization withWCAG2.0"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Gregg,

This is interesting; you are saying the AT can determine the purpose of
each link when given both. In reading the standard at face value, I
took the phrase "The purpose of each link can be determined" to mean by
the human user reading the link. It is not clear at all that the
standard is referring to AT.

Don


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 5:32 PM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Web - Link purpose -
harmonizationwithWCAG2.0

It mean that AT can figure it out if given both pieces. (if given the
Link
AND the context).

If "OR" was used, then AT would have to be able to figure it out from
JUST
THE LINK and also from JUST THE CONTEXT (Without the link).


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Barrett, Don
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:42 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Web - Link purpose -
> harmonization withWCAG2.0
>
> No problem here, except I still haven't heard a good
> explanation as to why "and" and not "or" is being used. If
> both the link text and context must satisfy the standard,
> then we are disallowing links like "click here," or "more,"
> because the don't meet the text half of the standard. Sorry
> but that is unacceptable for a standard to do and is just way
> too prescriptive. If "or" is used, then it works so much
> better as either one will provide the level of desired access
> even if both can't be met. Am I missing the boat here; this
> seems so simple.
>
> Don
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 6:20 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Web - Link purpose -
> harmonization with WCAG2.0
>
>
> When we reviewed the new wording of the WCAG 2.0 provisions
> that we have already agreed to include in our recommendation,
> we missed the one on link purpose.
>
> The provision wording from WCAG 2.0 that we already agreed to is:
>
> The purpose of each link shall be capable of being determined
> from the link text and its programmatically determinable link context.
>
> The latest WCAG 2.0 wording is:
>
> The purpose of each link can be determined from the link text
> and its programmatically determined link context.
>
> Any objections to adopting the new WCAG 2.0 wording?
>
> Andi
> ;
>
>

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Web - Link purpose - harmonization withWCAG2.0"