WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Click Here.

for

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Feb 16, 2006 11:45AM

On 2/16/06, <EMAIL REMOVED> < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> I can't say that I agree with you here Ken.

I prefer "Kynn," by the way. If you're using a screenreader it may
sound subtly different -- K y n n.

> When a sited person visits a
> page looking for a link to take him or her to more information about
> something that he or she knows is mentioned within a page, they will
> frequently do this by visually scanning the links on the page. (Gaining
> nothing from context)

This is an incorrect oversimplification of how sighted users approach
web pages. It's completely untrue that they gain nothing from
context. In fact, it is completely impossible -- visual users always
use the context when locating links.

For example, I am reading this in google mail. I know where to find
the "reply" and "forward" links, because of where they are visually
located on the page. That's because it's where I expect it to be,
based on the layout of the page.

There is also, somewhere, a link called "preview invite" and another
called "create a filter." I had no idea those were there until I
specifically went hunting. If you asked me, without looking at the
screen, to name the links on the page, I wouldn't have found those.

Why? Because they're out of the way, they're hidden over THERE and up
there THERE, where I can't see them because I don't look.

There's also a pair of links at the bottom which say:

Get the Gmail Notifier for the Mac. Learn more.

"Gmail Notifier for the Mac" is one link. "Learn more" is another.
Yes, "Learn More" doesn't make sense out of context, given that it
could be about anything on the page. There are other "Learn more"
links on the page. But it's also presented in logical, structured
order, and if I broke that order, it would fail to work as well.

(Note: I'm not holding up Gmail as an example of accessible design,
but rather using it to illustrate how visually dependent users are
forced to process information, due to our dependency.)

> The link list feature of screen readers allows
> blind users to gain that same functionality.

No, it's a different kind of functionality.

> Well chosen link text helps
> both the sited and unsited alike in this situation. Example: I have
> arrived on a page promoting an event that I would like to attend. I want
> to purchase tickets to the event but don't want to bother reading all
> about the event, I already know I want to go. If the page has 30 links
> that say nothing but "Click Here" with the contextual phrase that tells me
> where I am going either before or after "Click Here" it takes me a lot
> longer to find the link to the tickets visually, and I cannot do it
> without listening through the page using a screen reader. If instead
> there is a link that says "Purchase Tickets" I can get my tickets quickly
> whether I am scanning visually or using a link list on a screen reader.
> Of course the link text could be "Click Here to Buy Tickets" but why
> bother with all the extra words.

Because "click here to buy tickets" has increased usability for
everyone, actually.

I also think you're not reading carefully what I am saying. You
probably should, because it is more complex than what people are
usually taught about web accessibility, which is simplifications such
as "click here is bad!"

"Click here" is neither good nor bad. And trying to argue that it's
necessarily bad because some people intentionally break the structure
of structured markup and then attempt to use a page is a poor, poor
argument.

--Kynn