WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: 2.4.4 Link purpose (In context)

for

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Mar 6, 2020 5:00PM

Yes, 3.3.2 requires that a form control has a persistent visible label
(no, it can't be labeled by placeholder text alone), any label passes
3.3.2, 2.4.6 requires that the label describes topic/purpose.
2.4.6 does not say that the label has to uniquely describe topic pr
purpose, so "delete" or "read more" seem to be sufficient, at least on
the surface, even if you really want users to be able to clearly
distinguish between multiple "delete" buttons on the same page, or at
least be damn sure what they are deleting (3.3.4 comes into play here,
to some extent, if the deletion affects user data or financial info).
Yes, I stayed clear of the programmatic context for links discussion.
Htere is plenty to unpack there, but since I get to set standards for
my organization I simply don't allow it, (links in a data table being
the only exception).
I just use visually hidden text and have people write out the
clarification text, rather ann using id connections and
aria-labelledby, but only because it is less technical and easier for
the content team to solve.
<a href="http://2">Read more <span class="ScreenReader"> about 2</span></a>



On 3/6/20, glen walker < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Birkir: "In my interpretation 2.4.4 is about accessible name of links, not
> visible text."
>
> Yeah, kinda sorta. It's definitely about links but not necessarily about
> the accessible name. You could have a crappy accessible name of "read
> more" and if that link was embedded in a paragraph, technically it has
> context so would pass 2.4.4. But if I bring up the list of links on the
> page, all I'll hear is "read more" without the context. It's a terrible
> user experience and requires the user to hunt for the context. Yes, some
> screen readers have shortcut keys to let you read the paragraph or the
> table cell where the link is contained, but it still requires one to do
> more exploring than you should have to do.
>
> I always lean towards 2.4.9 even though it's AAA. I'll use aria-labelledby
> on "read more" links so that it's labelled by itself ("read more") as well
> as whatever context it should be associated with, whether a heading or a
> sentence or even a few key phrases from a sentence. That makes the link
> sound beautiful with the screen reader and also makes it sound good when
> you bring up the list of links.
>
> But from a conceptual view, Birkir is right. Sometimes I get a bit OCD
> about the technicalities.
>
> Back to Sumit's question, there seems to be some confusion that the
> remediation suggestion (whether to use aria-label or aria-labelledby or
> whatever) affects which success criteria to use for the failure. The two
> are unrelated. How you fix a problem has nothing to do with the success
> criteria.
>
> And going back to 2.4.6, as noted earlier, 4.1.2 says a form element, such
> as a button, has to have an accessible name. As long as a name can be
> computed (and role and value), then it passes 4.1.2. The name of the
> button could be terrible, such as "click here", but technically it has an
> accessible name so 4.1.2 is ok. Where it would fail is 2.4.6. The button
> has a name/label but the name/label does not describe the purpose.
>
> So when working with buttons (or other form elements), 4.1.2 and 2.4.6 come
> into play.
> When working with links, 2.4.4 comes into play.
>
> Just be careful because your original question said "if link doesn't have
> descriptive link purpose, then it'll fall into 2.4.4". If it doesn't have
> a descriptive purpose *by itself*, it doesn't necessarily fail 2.4.4. If
> it's not descriptive even with its context, then it would fail.
>
>
> And now for our next fun topic, what's the difference between "labels" in
> 2.4.6 and "labels" in 3.3.2? Both have a definition link in the success
> criterion but the links point to the same place.
>
> To me, 3.3.2 is similar to 4.1.2 in that it says the label has to exist.
> It could be a crappy label, but if it exists then 3.3.2 would pass.
> Whether it's a good label is up to 2.4.6.
>
> It would have been fun to have these discussions at CSUN.
> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.