E-mail List Archives

Re: Generic Links

for

From: Elle
Date: Oct 31, 2012 5:50PM


@Jared:

Thank you for the input! I must have missed your making this point
earlier, I apologize. I'm personally a big fan of this technique. Even
though we discourage repetitive links during the design stage of a web page
when it doesn't add to the overall clarity of the page, this method can
also handle those times when it's better to have a clean design that
reduces the overall impact of a cluttered, varied list of links on a page
for users with cognitive issues.

@David:

I think your point is valid, but it could be mitigated with a bit of
training for Customer Service as a part of overall training for supporting
people with disabilities. For example, "When providing customer service,
please remember that occasionally we support screen reader users with
hidden text, especially in the case of repetitive links on a web page.
Examples include..."


Cheers,
Elle





On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:34 PM, David Ashleydale < <EMAIL REMOVED> >wrote:

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



--
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