WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Are shorter URLs an accessibility feature?

for

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Jun 16, 2014 2:21PM

I agree that shortened URLs that are not intuitive or easy to remember can
be difficult for accessibility.

However, if it is not impossible for them (especially when using the more
common shortener sites such as bitly) to be made unique or intuitive. If
your university ends up making their own URL shortener, you will find it
much easier to create unique URLs to fit your needs

I would argue that some disabilities, particularly those of us with memory
or cognitive issues, may find these to be helpful. Sure, many people could
be using bookmarks or via web search, but there are the instances when
someone may be reading a magazine or printed pamphlet and benefit from a
short URL. There are times when I need to write down a URL, and
'bit.ly/wcag20p1' is way easier to remember than
www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#perceivable.

I'm not sure why WCAG was brought up, but perhaps 1.3.1 or 4.1.2? Kudos
for ever considering AAA, but 2.4.9 would be a pretty obvious one to me.

-Jon



On 6/16/14, 3:29 PM, "Birkir R. Gunnarsson" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

>For a mobility impaired user (or myself using Voiceover with on-screen
>iOS keyboard, at an average speed of 3 words a week), it may sound
>tempting and accessible on the surface.
>But the problem with shortened URLs is that you are very unlikely to
>get an easy-to-remember, or intuitive URL. There is a lot to be said
>for intuitive URLs in general, some say it is a form of accessibility,
>though I would not go that far necessarily, as long as the page titles
>are descriptive.
>Also a user will generally get to that page either via bookmark (if
>frequently used) or via an external link, such as from another
>website/web search.
>So I do not see pure accessibility value in short (particularly
>shortened) URLs as such.
>I definitely fail to see how WCAG could be made relevant to this idea.
>
>Cheers
>-B
>
>On 6/16/14, Weissenberger, Todd M < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>> One of our student disability groups on campus is creating a new
>>website,
>> and they would like to use a top level domain URL. Their rationale is
>>that a
>> simpler URL could provide an accessibility boost due to its simplicity
>>and
>> brevity.
>>
>> Our university hostmaster is resisting this request, as the resource is
>> linkable from other sites on campus.
>>
>> Has anybody considered this before? Does it make any sense?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Todd
>> >> >> >>
>
>
>--
>Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
>>>