E-mail List Archives

Re: Generic Links

for

From: David Ashleydale
Date: Oct 31, 2012 4:22PM


Elle,
Could you give a specific example of what you mean?

Thanks,
David


On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Elle < <EMAIL 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 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 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
> > > >