WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: evaluating accessibility with WCAG 2.0

for

From: Patrick Dunphy
Date: Apr 7, 2011 7:15AM

Utilizing dl for this specific example would be inappropriate. Reserve dl
markup for name/value pairings.

Another point to consider would be to that UL/OL informs users of the number
of items within the list where as (correct me if I'm wrong) DL does not.

Thanks!
-PD



On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Jason Kiss < <EMAIL REMOVED> >wrote:

> Whether or not it's a full-on violation is, like many things to do with
> semantic markup, open to interpretation. But should one want to take a
> strict approach, I could see calling it a failure of WCAG 2.0 SC 1.3.1
> since the content is fairly clearly, I would argue, a list of links, and
> so should be marked up as a list, as you describe.
>
> Making it a list would also provide assistive technology users with
> information about the number of links in the list. Such an approach is
> supported by Sufficient Technique H48: Using ol, ul and dl for lists or
> groups of links (http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20101014/H48
> ).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jason
> --
> Jason Kiss
> Web: www.accessibleculture.org
> Email: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Twitter: @jkiss
>
> On 07/04/11 05:37, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> > I don't think that this violates any WCAG 2.0/1.0/508 criteria.
> > There may be usability advantages for another method, but no
> > violation.
> >
> > Thanks, AWK
> >
> > Andrew Kirkpatrick Group Product Manager, Accessibility Adobe
> > Systems
> >
> > <EMAIL REMOVED> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> > http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> > [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Angela
> > French Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 1:33 PM To: 'WebAim Forum
> > ( <EMAIL REMOVED> )'; ' <EMAIL REMOVED> '
> > Subject: [WebAIM] evaluating accessibility with WCAG 2.0
> >
> > I am doing my first accessibility review of a site specifically using
> > WCAG 2.0 and I'm having some trouble making the mental cross-walk
> > from 1.0 to 2.0. In particular, I am struggling with how to present
> > results to management in a way that is easily understood in terms of
> > what "rule" is being broken and the severity of that "rule."
> >
> > Here is a specific example I'm struggling with. A content developer
> > did not use the proper html element to convey proper structure.
> > Where, in my opinion, an unordered list should have been used to
> > present a list of links, the content provider wrote the links in a
> > paragraph tag with the pipe mark between links like this:
> >
> > <p>< a href="">link one</a> |<a href="">link two</a> | etc.</p>.
> >
> > This is semantically incorrect, but what Principle/Guideline/Success
> > Criterion/etc. does it violate? It does not follow General
> > Technique
> > 115<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20081103/general.html#G115
> >.
> >
> >
> So is it Principle 1 that is not being conformed to? Guideline 1.3.1
> (which is level A)? General Technique 115?
> > What is the best practice method of communicating the failure
> > presented in this example?
> >
> > Thank you for any advice.
> >
> > Angela French Internet Specialist State Board for Community and
> > Technical Colleges 360-704-4316 <EMAIL REMOVED>
> > http://www.checkoutacollege.com<;http://www.checkoutacollege.com/>;
> >
> >