E-mail List Archives
Thread: Link Titles
Number of posts in this thread: 4 (In chronological order)
From: David Ashleydale
Date: Tue, Apr 23 2013 5:42PM
Subject: Link Titles
No previous message | Next message →
Hi,
I've been involved in discussions on this topic in the past, but now I'm
just really looking for some general opinions.
We do tell our writers that the best links are the ones that have text that
exactly matches the title of the page they are going to. They really do try
to adhere to this, but it's not always possible. We do still end up with
some generic links like "Learn more", mostly due to space restrictions in
certain components. Also, it does sometimes make sense to have a kind of
"action" link to continue on to a next step such as reading a full article,
without having to repeat the name of the article.
I've been telling our writers that they should first try to use the exact
text of the title of the page they are going to, but if they can't, they
can use generic text links, but only if it's within some kind of
programmatically determinable context, such as after a header, inside a
list, inside a paragraph, etc.
And I've also been telling them that they should go ahead and give the
generic link a TITLE attribute that is more descriptive, such as
title="Learn more about online banking". Now, I know that people hardly
ever encounter titles on links, and it seems like they are just becoming
less and less used over the years.
My question: should I just stop the practice of adding titles to generic
links? Is it even worth doing anymore? There is a downside to using them:
when the link is updated, the page author has to remember to change the
title, too. It sometimes happens that they forget, so then the title no
longer matches the link. But the upside is that they could be useful to
someone that happens across them. I just wonder if that audience is so
small these days that it's not really worth the effort.
Thanks,
David Ashleydale
From: Rabab Gomaa
Date: Wed, Apr 24 2013 7:42AM
Subject: Re: Link Titles
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi David,
It is important to avoid more than one link with the same link text linking to different destination to prevent confusion for screen reader users and also to pass WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.4 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#navigation-mechanisms-refs.
If the title is not suitable, you can use css to hide a part of the text. For example "read more about xyz" will visually be "read more" and "about xyz" will be hidden. The technique is explained on
http://webaim.org/techniques/css/invisiblecontent/
Rabab
>>> David Ashleydale < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 23/04/2013 7:42 PM >>>
Hi,
I've been involved in discussions on this topic in the past, but now I'm
just really looking for some general opinions.
We do tell our writers that the best links are the ones that have text that
exactly matches the title of the page they are going to. They really do try
to adhere to this, but it's not always possible. We do still end up with
some generic links like "Learn more", mostly due to space restrictions in
certain components. Also, it does sometimes make sense to have a kind of
"action" link to continue on to a next step such as reading a full article,
without having to repeat the name of the article.
I've been telling our writers that they should first try to use the exact
text of the title of the page they are going to, but if they can't, they
can use generic text links, but only if it's within some kind of
programmatically determinable context, such as after a header, inside a
list, inside a paragraph, etc.
And I've also been telling them that they should go ahead and give the
generic link a TITLE attribute that is more descriptive, such as
title="Learn more about online banking". Now, I know that people hardly
ever encounter titles on links, and it seems like they are just becoming
less and less used over the years.
My question: should I just stop the practice of adding titles to generic
links? Is it even worth doing anymore? There is a downside to using them:
when the link is updated, the page author has to remember to change the
title, too. It sometimes happens that they forget, so then the title no
longer matches the link. But the upside is that they could be useful to
someone that happens across them. I just wonder if that audience is so
small these days that it's not really worth the effort.
Thanks,
David Ashleydale
From: David Ashleydale
Date: Wed, Apr 24 2013 10:54AM
Subject: Re: Link Titles
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Rabab,
2.4.4 can be satisfied by providing enough context, which we do.
H80<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/H80>;,
which is one of the sufficient techniques for 2.4.4, shows an example of
this. Look at example number 3.
Furthering that example for my case, I would advise my writers to add a
title to the "More here" link. Although, I think "Learn more" sounds
better. They would put a title that says something like, "Learn more about
the stock market soaring as bullishness prevails."
I'm just wondering if it's even worth adding a title these days. 2.4.4 is
already being satisfied and apparently hardly anyone ever encounters the
titles.
Hiding content from sighted users and only showing it to screen reader
users is fine in those cases where there is something going on on the page
that is apparent to sighted users only, but that's not true in this case.
The context is sufficient here.
We're adding titles right now as a nice-to-have for those users that do
happen to want to look for them. But I'm not sure it's worth it anymore.
Thanks,
David
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Rabab Gomaa
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> It is important to avoid more than one link with the same link text
> linking to different destination to prevent confusion for screen reader
> users and also to pass WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.4
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#navigation-mechanisms-refs.
>
> If the title is not suitable, you can use css to hide a part of the text.
> For example "read more about xyz" will visually be "read more" and "about
> xyz" will be hidden. The technique is explained on
> http://webaim.org/techniques/css/invisiblecontent/
> Rabab
> >>> David Ashleydale < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 23/04/2013 7:42 PM >>>
> Hi,
>
> I've been involved in discussions on this topic in the past, but now I'm
> just really looking for some general opinions.
>
> We do tell our writers that the best links are the ones that have text that
> exactly matches the title of the page they are going to. They really do try
> to adhere to this, but it's not always possible. We do still end up with
> some generic links like "Learn more", mostly due to space restrictions in
> certain components. Also, it does sometimes make sense to have a kind of
> "action" link to continue on to a next step such as reading a full article,
> without having to repeat the name of the article.
>
> I've been telling our writers that they should first try to use the exact
> text of the title of the page they are going to, but if they can't, they
> can use generic text links, but only if it's within some kind of
> programmatically determinable context, such as after a header, inside a
> list, inside a paragraph, etc.
>
> And I've also been telling them that they should go ahead and give the
> generic link a TITLE attribute that is more descriptive, such as
> title="Learn more about online banking". Now, I know that people hardly
> ever encounter titles on links, and it seems like they are just becoming
> less and less used over the years.
>
> My question: should I just stop the practice of adding titles to generic
> links? Is it even worth doing anymore? There is a downside to using them:
> when the link is updated, the page author has to remember to change the
> title, too. It sometimes happens that they forget, so then the title no
> longer matches the link. But the upside is that they could be useful to
> someone that happens across them. I just wonder if that audience is so
> small these days that it's not really worth the effort.
>
> Thanks,
> David Ashleydale
> > > >
> > > >
>
From: Rabab Gomaa
Date: Fri, Apr 26 2013 8:04AM
Subject: Re: Link Titles
← Previous message | No next message
Hi David,
I think it depends on which level of WCAG you want to achieve.
If you are targeting WCAG 2.0 AA, and all your links satisfies any of (H77, H78, H79, H80, H81) for 2.4.4, then you can stop using titles.
If you plan to satisfy WCAG AAA, then to satisfy 2.4.9 you may need to think of techniques like C7: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/C7 or others.
Rabab
>>> David Ashleydale < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 2013-04-24 12:54 PM >>>
Hi Rabab,
2.4.4 can be satisfied by providing enough context, which we do.
H80<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/H80>;,
which is one of the sufficient techniques for 2.4.4, shows an example of
this. Look at example number 3.
Furthering that example for my case, I would advise my writers to add a
title to the "More here" link. Although, I think "Learn more" sounds
better. They would put a title that says something like, "Learn more about
the stock market soaring as bullishness prevails."
I'm just wondering if it's even worth adding a title these days. 2.4.4 is
already being satisfied and apparently hardly anyone ever encounters the
titles.
Hiding content from sighted users and only showing it to screen reader
users is fine in those cases where there is something going on on the page
that is apparent to sighted users only, but that's not true in this case.
The context is sufficient here.
We're adding titles right now as a nice-to-have for those users that do
happen to want to look for them. But I'm not sure it's worth it anymore.
Thanks,
David
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Rabab Gomaa
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> It is important to avoid more than one link with the same link text
> linking to different destination to prevent confusion for screen reader
> users and also to pass WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.4
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#navigation-mechanisms-refs.
>
> If the title is not suitable, you can use css to hide a part of the text.
> For example "read more about xyz" will visually be "read more" and "about
> xyz" will be hidden. The technique is explained on
> http://webaim.org/techniques/css/invisiblecontent/
> Rabab
> >>> David Ashleydale < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > 23/04/2013 7:42 PM >>>
> Hi,
>
> I've been involved in discussions on this topic in the past, but now I'm
> just really looking for some general opinions.
>
> We do tell our writers that the best links are the ones that have text that
> exactly matches the title of the page they are going to. They really do try
> to adhere to this, but it's not always possible. We do still end up with
> some generic links like "Learn more", mostly due to space restrictions in
> certain components. Also, it does sometimes make sense to have a kind of
> "action" link to continue on to a next step such as reading a full article,
> without having to repeat the name of the article.
>
> I've been telling our writers that they should first try to use the exact
> text of the title of the page they are going to, but if they can't, they
> can use generic text links, but only if it's within some kind of
> programmatically determinable context, such as after a header, inside a
> list, inside a paragraph, etc.
>
> And I've also been telling them that they should go ahead and give the
> generic link a TITLE attribute that is more descriptive, such as
> title="Learn more about online banking". Now, I know that people hardly
> ever encounter titles on links, and it seems like they are just becoming
> less and less used over the years.
>
> My question: should I just stop the practice of adding titles to generic
> links? Is it even worth doing anymore? There is a downside to using them:
> when the link is updated, the page author has to remember to change the
> title, too. It sometimes happens that they forget, so then the title no
> longer matches the link. But the upside is that they could be useful to
> someone that happens across them. I just wonder if that audience is so
> small these days that it's not really worth the effort.
>
> Thanks,
> David Ashleydale
> > > >
> > > >
>