Thread Subject: Re: Web - Link purpose-harmonizationwithWCAG2.0
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Peter Wallack
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2007 10:40 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Web - Link purpose-harmonizationwithWCAG2.0"
- Previous message in thread: Jared Smith: "Re: Web - Link purpose-harmonizationwithWCAG2.0"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Why are we so carefully wordsmithing this provision just for links?
Doesn't *every* interface element need clear and unambiguous text to
describe its function and purpose, and that content must be
programmatically determinable? I really don't see a fundamental
difference between the title of a page, the label of a textarea, or the
text of a link. At the very least, the distinction between a link and a
button is arguably zero. If we stick with the current differentiations,
is the intent to apply whatever 'clarifying' text that is developed here
to all the other provisions related to 'labeling'?
Accessibility Program Director
Jared Smith wrote:
> I think the confusion here arises from the definition of
> "programmatically determined link context". In WCAG 2.0, this includes
> the link text itself - http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#pdlinkcontextdef
> If we take this literally, then the word "and" in the WCAG 2.0
> language does not allow links to make sense all by themselves, they
> *must* make sense only with the link content. If there is no context
> other than the link text, then would it fail?
> So "or" does make more sense to me. Better yet, if the link text is
> one possible component of programmatically determined link context,
> then "The purpose of each link can be determined from the
> programmatically determined link context" would suffice as it would
> allow both the link text and the link context to be used in
> determining the purpose of the link.
> An alternative that perhaps is better and doesn't rely so much on the
> definition of link context: "The purpose of each link can be
> determined from the link text or the link text and its
> programmatically determined link context."
> I'm also a bit concerned with the word "purpose". I don't think it is
> inclusive enough. Don't we really mean "function" or "function or
> target" or "general context of the link target" or something. I have
> no recommendations for change here, but "purpose" seems much to vague
> - it refers to what the link *does* ("something will happen"), not to
> what the link is about ("*this* will happen").
> Jared Smith
- Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Web - Link purpose-harmonizationwithWCAG2.0"
- Previous message in Thread: Jared Smith: "Re: Web - Link purpose-harmonizationwithWCAG2.0"