E-mail List Archives

Re: Preceding headings and link context [wasWCAG 2.0: multiple buttons with the same name accessible]

for

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Nov 24, 2014 1:19PM


Cliff,
I'm not sure why you think that it is inconsistent? The examples are brief, but that doesn’t mean that it might not be applied to a longer list of links. The test procedure indicates that you just need to find the preceding heading, not the preceding heading when the list of links has no more than 5 members.

AWK

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Cliff Tyllick
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2014 12:47 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Preceding headings and link context [was Re: WCAG 2.0: multiple buttons with the same name accessible]

Andrew,
With all due respect to the WCAG Working Group, I think they've taken the review of H80 too far into the realm of the hypothetical.
<quote>The original logic was that while it is easy and convenient for a sighted user to glance at the heading and click the link, it is not so easy for a screen reader user … (after using the heading shortcut) it could be that the user needs to navigate through many links that stand between the heading and the original link. </quote> If the user needs to navigate through many links to get from the heading to the original link, the implementation is inconsistent with H80.
Each of the three example implementations in H80 has:- precise and meaningful headings
- a consistent pattern of content between headings- a small number of links in that pattern—five at the most- only one or two words in each link When wouldn't H80 work? I can think of only three cases:- When the preceding heading is not informative enough.
- When there is no consistent pattern of links between headings.- When the content of all links in that pattern strains the capacity of short-term memory—either because there are too many links or because the links contain too many words.

But, as I've noted above, none of these cases are consistent with H80. So rather than relegate H80 to the nebulous category of "advisory" techniques, the Working Group could have developed appropriate counterexamples to illustrate failure:- H###: Relying on a heading that provides too little context
- H###: Inconsistent pattern of links- H###: Too much information in the links

Cliff Tyllick

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Preceding headings and link context [was Re: WCAG 2.0: multiple buttons with the same name accessible]

Jason,
My answer below:
<quote>
Agreed, but given that all screen readers (at least as far as I'm
aware) enable quick access to a link's preceding heading (albeit simultaneously moving focus to that heading), wouldn't we consider the relationship between the link and that heading both programmatically determinable AND effectively fully accessibility supported by screen readers?
</quote>

The original logic was that while it is easy and convenient for a sighted user to glance at the heading and click the link, it is not so easy for a screen reader user.  The advantage of the JAWS shortcut (JAWS + T) is that you can be informed about the most local heading prior to the link, but if the user uses the heading shortcut they move their focus (as you indicate) so the user then needs to navigate back to the link that was focused and that they were considering activating.  That link might be the next item in the DOM after the heading, or it could be that the user needs to navigate through many links that stand between the heading and the original link.  This doesn't amount to a good user experience, and yes, it is absolutely due to what the screen reader is conveniently or (in this case) not conveniently providing, and as a result the group hear from users and as a result felt that what is currently available isn't quite good enough.

What the WCAG group says in this regard isn't normative, only the standard is.  If you feel that you're meeting the success criteria with any technique you need to be prepared to defend your methods.  It is convenient to be able to say "the WCAG group thinks it is ok" (just as a person complaining might find it convenient to say if the WCAG group publishes a failure for a technique you use) but if you can show that what you are doing works and meets the SC then you'll have a good response to a complaint.  If you can't, well, then you probably aren't.

AWK


>
> What the techniques do for authors is provide a set of ways that they can meet the success criteria.  There are many techniques that the group hasn't published, so the techniques don't describe the only way to meet the success criteria, but what they do provide is a way to meet a given SC in a way that allows the author to say "the WCAG group indicates that in their opinion this works".  If an author wants to do something that the group hasn't published as a technique, or that the group feels is less than ideal, he still can but will need to provide more of the information that provides backing to the idea that the technique used meets the success criteria.
>
> Does this help?
> AWK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Jason Kiss
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 3:24 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List
> Subject: [WebAIM] Preceding headings and link context [was Re: WCAG
> 2.0: multiple buttons with the same name accessible]
>
> I don't mean to come across as a troll, since this issue was addressed by the WAI more than a year ago, as is noted in the history of the change regarding H80 that Andrew provided last August [1].
>
> Still, I'd like to ask how that decision or the surrounding guidance provided in the non-normative Understanding WCAG and Techniques for WCAG documents disallow using the preceding heading for programmatic link context in order to satisfy Success Criterion 2.4.4?
>
> A little disclaimer: I openly admit to an intermittent frustration, if not simple confusion, with a certain ambiguity I find in not only some of the language used in the Sufficient Techniques and the Understanding documents, but also how they are sometimes referred to, intentionally or not, as if they established normative requirements as opposed to just providing, albeit very useful, informative guidance.
> Anyway, that's just my bugbear, but perhaps you can disabuse me. I wouldn't mind <grin>.
>
> Now the question: I might be misunderstanding the WCAG spec and its definitions. Do Success Criterion 2.4.4 and the normative definitions of programmatically determined (programmatically determinable) [2] and programmatically determined link context [3] require that a link's context be programmatically determinable without the user having to move focus from the link, as is informatively suggested in Understanding SC 2.4.4 [4]? Or do the Success Criterion and those definitions only require that the link's context be available by virtue of a programmatically determinable relationship, something that a link's immediately preceding heading surely provides (even though it may require that a user move focus away from the link to determine that context)?
>
> I'm not suggesting that relying on preceding headings to provide link context delivers the most usable experience for screen reader users. I know that it doesn't, given current levels of accessibility support among those user agents. But, from the perspective of having to assess a pass/fail against a specific normative requirement, doesn't a preceding heading provide a programmatically determinable context for a link?
>
> Perhaps I am misunderstanding Success Criterion 2.4.4 on the whole?
>
> By the way, I'm not suggesting that technique H80 be moved back to Sufficient from Advisory. I'm comfortable that it remain Advisory.
>
> Thanks for any help,
>
> Jason
>
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2014JulSep/0122.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#programmaticallydetermineddef
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#pdlinkcontextdef
> [4]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/navigation-mechanisms-refs.h
> tml
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Jonathan Avila < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>>> Isn't preceding heading no longer allowed for link purpose determination? Link purpose, button purpose same thing right?
>>
>> Yes, that is my understanding but it was also my understanding that SC 2.4.4 did not apply to buttons.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
>> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Paul Adam
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:41 PM
>> To: <EMAIL REMOVED> ; WebAIM Discussion List
>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG 2.0: multiple buttons with the same name
>> accessible
>>
>> Isn't preceding heading no longer allowed for link purpose determination? Link purpose, button purpose same thing right?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Nov 19, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Bim Egan < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> In my view the situation you've described would mean that the buttons were
>>> accessible under WCAG2.  This is because there's a heading structure that
>>> gives context for each of the same-name buttons.    The purpose of the
>>> button is programmatically determinable.  Unfortunately, in some
>>> screen readers this might mean that audible output includes the page
>>> title as well as the preceding heading, but the context is there, so you've done your job.
>>>
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>>
>>> Bim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
>>> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Wloch,
>>> Rob
>>> Sent: 19 November 2014 16:05
>>> To: ' <EMAIL REMOVED> '
>>> Subject: [WebAIM] WCAG 2.0: multiple buttons with the same name
>>> accessible
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I haven't been able to find an answer to this in the WCAG 2.0 so I
>>> thought I'd ask in this forum for your opinions. Is it allowed to
>>> have multiple buttons with the same name on a webpage? I'm wondering
>>> if it's similar to the guidelines for links where screen readers
>>> would see a list of links with multiple "click here" which isn't good.
>>>
>>> For example, something like below where the text between the square
>>> brackets represents the button names:
>>>
>>> H2 Blah blah blah
>>> [start]
>>>
>>> H2 Blah blah blah
>>> [modify] [stop]
>>>
>>> H2 Blah blah blah
>>> [modify] [stop]
>>>
>>> Thanks, Rob.
>>> >>> >>> list messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
>>>
>>> >>> >>> list messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
>> >> >> list messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
>> >> >> list messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
> > > list messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>
> > > list messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>