WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Are shorter URLs an accessibility feature?

for

From: Jim Allan
Date: Jun 16, 2014 3:38PM

When I read the original post I thought of CMSs or other database driven
sites that have urls to specific pages (or sub-sites) that maybe 50+
characters long. Having a top level (foo.someplace.edu) or a directory off
of the main url - www.school.edu/student-a11y will be lots shorter and
easier to remember. For those using alternative input anything is better
than 50+ characters with % # ? and = scattered throughout.
Jim


On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Jonathan Metz < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

> 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.
> >> >> >>
> > > >



--
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator & Webmaster
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315 fax: 512.206.9264 http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964