E-mail List Archives

Re: Generic Links

for

From: David Ashleydale
Date: Oct 31, 2012 4:34PM


Thanks, Ryan.

I think the main problem I see with that technique is that it could be
confusing when sighted and non-sighted users speak to each other, like in a
customer service situation.

Customer: I can't get the WebAIM link to work.
Customer Service Rep: I'm sorry, which link are you talking about?
C: The link that says, "Click here to find out about WebAIM."
CSR: There is no such link on the page. There are a lot of links that just
say "Click here", maybe you mean one of those?
C: No, JAWS is clearly telling me that there is a link on this page that
says, "Click here to find out about WebAIM."

This is kind of a trivial example, but in general, it seems like showing
different people different text could be a source of confusion.

Thanks,
David


On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Ryan E. Benson < <EMAIL REMOVED> >wrote:

> 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
> >> > >> > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >