WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Generic Links

for

From: Patrick Dunphy
Date: Nov 1, 2012 3:35PM

With the use of offscreen text how would a user that utilizes voice
commands interact with said <a href="[URL]">Read More <span class="hidden">
about Topic X</span></a>?
On Nov 1, 2012 10:56 AM, "Sailesh Panchang" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

> Screen readers such as JAWS , Win-Eyes, VO do allow one to read
> current sentence / para without requiring one to move focus away from
> the link.
> David ... also refer to my previous comments in this thread.
> Also using off-screen text is more code / more work in this case which
> can be avoided. I do not recommend it in this context. Use the AT's
> feature to get the context. This applies to regular reading of the
> page (sufficient for WCAG AA) and not to a links-list ... which is an
> additional feature of the AT.
> Sailesh
>
> On 10/31/12, David Ashleydale < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> > Ryan,
> > I always thought that sentence you quoted was kind of an outlier and
> didn't
> > really make sense to me when paired with the sentence right before it,
> "If
> > the context for the link is not in the same sentence, paragraph, list
> item,
> > or table cell as the link, then the user will not be able to find out
> where
> > the link is going with any ease. 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."
> >
> > To me, the first sentence says that having a "click here" link in the
> > middle of a sentence is fine because of the context provided by the
> > sentence, but then the second sentence kind of negates that by saying you
> > shouldn't have to leave the link to figure out what it's for. So I read
> the
> > second sentence as, "If the user must leave the link to search for the
> > context (except in the cases just listed),..."
> >
> > After all 2.4.4 does state, "The purpose of each
> > link<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#linkpurposedef>; can
> > be determined from the link text alone or from the link text together
> with
> > its programmatically determined link
> > context<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#pdlinkcontextdef>;..."
> > So the link text alone doesn't have to work on its own in order to
> satisfy
> > this criteria.
> >
> > But I agree they could have worded that second sentence better.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:48 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
> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > >