E-mail List Archives

Re: Generic Links

for

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Oct 31, 2012 4:26PM


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 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 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
>> >> >> >>
> > >