E-mail List Archives
Thread: evaluating accessibility with WCAG 2.0
Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)
From: Angela French
Date: Wed, Apr 06 2011 11:33AM
Subject: evaluating accessibility with WCAG 2.0
No previous message | Next message →
I am doing my first accessibility review of a site specifically using WCAG 2.0 and I'm having some trouble making the mental cross-walk from 1.0 to 2.0. In particular, I am struggling with how to present results to management in a way that is easily understood in terms of what "rule" is being broken and the severity of that "rule."
Here is a specific example I'm struggling with. A content developer did not use the proper html element to convey proper structure. Where, in my opinion, an unordered list should have been used to present a list of links, the content provider wrote the links in a paragraph tag with the pipe mark between links like this:
<p>< a href="">link one</a> | <a href="">link two</a> | etc. </p>.
This is semantically incorrect, but what Principle/Guideline/Success Criterion/etc. does it violate? It does not follow General Technique 115<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20081103/general.html#G115>;.
So is it Principle 1 that is not being conformed to? Guideline 1.3.1 (which is level A)? General Technique 115?
What is the best practice method of communicating the failure presented in this example?
Thank you for any advice.
Angela French
Internet Specialist
State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
360-704-4316
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.checkoutacollege.com<;http://www.checkoutacollege.com/>;
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Wed, Apr 06 2011 11:39AM
Subject: Re: evaluating accessibility with WCAG 2.0
← Previous message | Next message →
I don't think that this violates any WCAG 2.0/1.0/508 criteria. There may be usability advantages for another method, but no violation.
Thanks,
AWK
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe Systems
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://twitter.com/awkawk
http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
From: Jason Kiss
Date: Thu, Apr 07 2011 1:21AM
Subject: Re: evaluating accessibility with WCAG 2.0
← Previous message | Next message →
Whether or not it's a full-on violation is, like many things to do with
semantic markup, open to interpretation. But should one want to take a
strict approach, I could see calling it a failure of WCAG 2.0 SC 1.3.1
since the content is fairly clearly, I would argue, a list of links, and
so should be marked up as a list, as you describe.
Making it a list would also provide assistive technology users with
information about the number of links in the list. Such an approach is
supported by Sufficient Technique H48: Using ol, ul and dl for lists or
groups of links (http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20101014/H48).
Cheers,
Jason
--
Jason Kiss
Web: www.accessibleculture.org
Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Twitter: @jkiss
On 07/04/11 05:37, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> I don't think that this violates any WCAG 2.0/1.0/508 criteria.
> There may be usability advantages for another method, but no
> violation.
>
> Thanks, AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick Group Product Manager, Accessibility Adobe
> Systems
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = http://twitter.com/awkawk
> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
>
>
>
From: John Hicks
Date: Thu, Apr 07 2011 4:27AM
Subject: Re: evaluating accessibility with WCAG 2.0
← Previous message | Next message →
I agree with Jason; this clearly this is a violation.
Remember that one of the principles behind all "rules" for accessibility
is the separation of content and form.
Although seemingly innocent... the use of the pipe to separate the
elements points directly to a hard-coding of layout.
Using a correctly styled list would avoid this.
good day to all,
John
Le 07/04/2011 09:19, Jason Kiss a écrit :
> Whether or not it's a full-on violation is, like many things to do with
> semantic markup, open to interpretation. But should one want to take a
> strict approach, I could see calling it a failure of WCAG 2.0 SC 1.3.1
> since the content is fairly clearly, I would argue, a list of links, and
> so should be marked up as a list, as you describe.
>
> Making it a list would also provide assistive technology users with
> information about the number of links in the list. Such an approach is
> supported by Sufficient Technique H48: Using ol, ul and dl for lists or
> groups of links (http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20101014/H48).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jason
From: Patrick Dunphy
Date: Thu, Apr 07 2011 7:15AM
Subject: Re: evaluating accessibility with WCAG 2.0
← Previous message | No next message
Utilizing dl for this specific example would be inappropriate. Reserve dl
markup for name/value pairings.
Another point to consider would be to that UL/OL informs users of the number
of items within the list where as (correct me if I'm wrong) DL does not.
Thanks!
-PD
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:19 AM, Jason Kiss < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> Whether or not it's a full-on violation is, like many things to do with
> semantic markup, open to interpretation. But should one want to take a
> strict approach, I could see calling it a failure of WCAG 2.0 SC 1.3.1
> since the content is fairly clearly, I would argue, a list of links, and
> so should be marked up as a list, as you describe.
>
> Making it a list would also provide assistive technology users with
> information about the number of links in the list. Such an approach is
> supported by Sufficient Technique H48: Using ol, ul and dl for lists or
> groups of links (http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20101014/H48
> ).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jason
> --
> Jason Kiss
> Web: www.accessibleculture.org
> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Twitter: @jkiss
>
> On 07/04/11 05:37, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> > I don't think that this violates any WCAG 2.0/1.0/508 criteria.
> > There may be usability advantages for another method, but no
> > violation.
> >
> > Thanks, AWK
> >
> > Andrew Kirkpatrick Group Product Manager, Accessibility Adobe
> > Systems
> >
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = http://twitter.com/awkawk
> > http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
> >
> >
> >