WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: [EXT]Requirement Or Nice To Have: When Links Leave A Site

for

From: John Hicks
Date: Aug 18, 2021 3:34AM

Bonjour everyone

I rarely post here and it's usually to head into left-field so why change
now? To go back to the original question, and appealing to the hallowed
cybernetic principle of POSIWID ...one could argue that this situation
(off-site link not saying where it's pointing) is a failure of 2.4.4.

Yes, it's a usability issue in general because sighted users don't have
that information either ... and yet, web savvy sighted mouse users can see
the url of the link in the bottom left corner of the browser on link hover.

So there are grounds for comparing sighted and non sighted experiences,
albeit they have more to do with navigator behaviour and undoubtedly this
could be configured for screen readers somehow (vocalizing the url of
links).

https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G91.html
"The description lets a user distinguish this link from links in the Web
page that lead to other destinations and helps the user determine whether
to follow the link."

An informed surfer makes the best decisions about which links to follow...





Le mer. 18 août 2021 à 04:56, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
<EMAIL REMOVED> > a écrit :

> It's 2 failures.
> 1.4.1 - using color alone as information
> 1.3.1 - not providing a text or programmatic equivalent for visual
> information.
>
> I would fix it by:
> * Adding icons to indicate completed, current and not done (in
> addition to color)
> * Adding alt text="completed" to done icons, aria-current="true" to
> current step, it can be aruged that "not done" doesn't need any text
> alternative.
>
>
> On 8/17/21, Max ability < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> > Yes Summit, Primarily its a failure of 1.4.1 Use of color.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 10:50 AM Sumit Patel <
> <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> If visual indication to indicate link will open in new page or PDF is
> >> not conveyed to screen reader users, falls into 1.1.1,
> >> Which SCs following violations will fall into?
> >> 1. Blue or Red color for a link has used to indicate this page is
> >> selected (current page)
> >>
> >> 2. We have 3 buttons. "Details", "Review" and "Payment"
> >> It is 3 steps. First user has to provide details, then review it and
> >> at last do payment.
> >> If user is in "Review" page,
> >> "Details" button will be in blue color(completed)
> >> "Review" button will be in white color(current page)
> >> "Payment" will be in grey colore (disabled state)
> >> screen reader will not read these states.
> >> I was thinking 1.4.1 and failing it under this SC. Am I doing right?
> >> If not, Please correct me
> >> Waiting for answers.....
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Sumit.
> >>
> >> On 10/08/2021, Max ability < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> >> > Agree with Jared. If the link navigates to an external website, opens
> in
> >> a
> >> > new browser window or links to a different format is not necessarily
> >> > mentioned to screen reader user as per WCAG requirement. This will
> >> > definitely enhance the user experience.
> >> > However, if the same information is available to someone who can see
> but
> >> > not available to screen reader it violates WCAG as Birkir mentioned.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> > Rakesh
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 4:26 PM Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
> >> > <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> If there is no visual indication of links that open in a new window,
> >> >> open a PDF file, or leave the site, WCAG does not require it.
> >> >> The closest it comes is WCAG 3.2.5 (which is a level AAA requirement,
> >> >> and thus considered best practice).
> >> >> If, however, there is a visual indication (icons or formatting)
> >> >> identifying links that do anything special, then WCAG SC 1.1.1 kicks
> >> >> in and requires that there is text or programmatic equivalent info
> >> >> available.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 8/10/21, Geetha Shamanna < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> >> >> > I have come across web sites where links that point to external
> pages
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > simply labelled 'opens in a new window'. Does that violate 2.4.4?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Geetha
> >> >> >