E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)

From: ED COHEN
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2003 3:35PM
Subject: Indicating a non-html link
No previous message | Next message →

Hello,
We would like to alert our visitors when links lead to non-html files such as to a MS Word or Adobe PDFs download. Our policy is to comply with Section 508, but the federal guidance is silent on this matter.

My concern is what text to offer either in the context or as an Alt tag if we do it with a graphic. I'm particularly about how understandable it will be when read by a screen reader. Is there a preferred way to indicate this?

Some examples and thoughts:
something.doc doc

something.doc DOC

something.doc Word

something.d

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2003 9:29PM
Subject: Re: Indicating a non-html link
← Previous message | Next message →

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, ED COHEN wrote:

> We would like to alert our visitors when links lead to non-html files
> such as to a MS Word or Adobe PDFs download.

A very good principle, not just for accessibility but for general
user-friendlyness. In theory, we should avoid referring to technical
details such as data formats in document content, but in practice,
users should be informed about them.

> My concern is what text to offer either in the context or as an Alt tag
> if we do it with a graphic. I'm particularly about how understandable
> it will be when read by a screen reader.

In speech presentation, it would probably be best if the note about data
format appeared before the link. But I'm afraid that in English, that
would often result in somewhat unnatural verbal expressions, like
"There are more details on this in our (PDF format) [link] plan for year
2020." or "There are more details on this (in PDF format) in our [link]
plan for year 2020." Besides, it would overemphasize the format and could
be even somewhat alienating to the majority. So as a compromise, putting
the note right after the link is probably best, as rule.

> Is there a preferred way to indicate this?
>
> Some examples and thoughts:
> something.doc doc

First, I would advice against making file names or URLs part of the
document content proper, unless there's a very special reason. Instead of
something.doc, it is best to use the title of the document.

Regarding the way of indicating the format, I think the best principle is
to use as plain language as possible, avoiding technicalities. For
example, doc or .doc is a common filename extension, not a data format
name. I would use "(Microsoft Word format)", "(PDF format)", "(plain text
format)", "(Microsoft Excel format)", and so on.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: oecih
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2003 10:35PM
Subject: Re: Indicating a non-html link
← Previous message | Next message →

From: "ED COHEN" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Indicating a non-html link

> We would like to alert our visitors when links lead to non-html
files
> such as to a MS Word or Adobe PDFs download.

When linking to non-html document I usually state the document type
and also its size (either in Kb or Mb) either as a textual link or as
a title/alt text.

> My concern is what text to offer either in the context or as an Alt
tag
> if we do it with a graphic. I'm particularly about how
understandable
> it will be when read by a screen reader.

I dont have a screenreader myself but as I read in
http://diveintoaccessibility.org/ a screenreader recognize the title
attribute, which works as an equivalent for an alt attribute on an
image link.

Here's some example of what would I have in such condition:

<a href="the_2003_annual_report.pdf"
title="some description about the file - PDF file (123 Kb)">The 2003
Annual Report</a>

<a href="the_2003_annual_report.pdf"><img
src="the_2003_annual_report.png"
alt="some description about the file - PDF file (123 Kb)" /></a>

rgds,
dewa m widyakumara

ps. BTW I'm new in this list. So this is my hello world post :)



----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Apr 28 2003 11:41PM
Subject: Re: Indicating a non-html link
← Previous message | Next message →

On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, oecih wrote:

> I dont have a screenreader myself but as I read in
> http://diveintoaccessibility.org/ a screenreader recognize the title
> attribute, which works as an equivalent for an alt attribute on an
> image link.

There are many different screen readers and other software that is used to
access Web pages in different ways. I don't think we should rely on the
title attributes being presented, or even available, to users. The title
attribute specifies, by definition, an advisory title. It could be
characterized as "nice to know" information, not relied upon.

> <a href="the_2003_annual_report.pdf"
> title="some description about the file - PDF file (123 Kb)">The 2003
> Annual Report</a>

As I wrote earlier, I would put information like "(in PDF format)" after
the link, or inside the link text (in cases where the same document is
made available in different formats, so that the format indicator is
needed to make the link texts different). Whether the size information is
needed is debatable, and depends. Not all people even know what "Kb"
means, and actually many people think that "b" means bits, not bytes.
I would mention the file size only if it's exceptionally large; and
123 kilobytes isn't large for a PDF file.

The title attribute could be used for other purposes, like giving an
expanded version of the name of the linked document.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: Lori K. Brown
Date: Tue, Apr 29 2003 3:56AM
Subject: Re: Indicating a non-html link
← Previous message | Next message →

I think stating file sizes is always a good idea, so that users on very
slow connections can be reassured that a given file is reasonable for them
to download. And while many users are unfamiliar w/ 'kb' and similar,
that's not a reason to omit it for the majority who are. Most
non-technical users are accustomed to ignoring that which is unfamiliar,
and this isn't going to hurt anyone.

And I think displaying the filename is helpful. If a user can see the
filename he/she is downloading, then it's easier for them to find the file
on their computer. You would be amazed how many users 'lose' downloaded
files because they are so bad at using the file manager and similar tools.

And it continues to puzzle and annoy me that the title attribute is so
poorly supported by screen readers. There might as well not even be such
an attribute if I can't rely on its support. It would be exceptionally
useful if it were consistently available. Then I could spend more time
working and less time reading this list. (charming and witty though you
all are.)

Lori K. Brown


> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, oecih wrote:
>
>> I dont have a screenreader myself but as I read in
>> http://diveintoaccessibility.org/ a screenreader recognize the title
>> attribute, which works as an equivalent for an alt attribute on an
>> image link.
>
> There are many different screen readers and other software that is used to
> access Web pages in different ways. I don't think we should rely on the
> title attributes being presented, or even available, to users. The title
> attribute specifies, by definition, an advisory title. It could be
> characterized as "nice to know" information, not relied upon.
>
>> <a href="the_2003_annual_report.pdf"
>> title="some description about the file - PDF file (123 Kb)">The 2003
>> Annual Report</a>
>
> As I wrote earlier, I would put information like "(in PDF format)" after
> the link, or inside the link text (in cases where the same document is
> made available in different formats, so that the format indicator is
> needed to make the link texts different). Whether the size information is
> needed is debatable, and depends. Not all people even know what "Kb"
> means, and actually many people think that "b" means bits, not bytes.
> I would mention the file size only if it's exceptionally large; and
> 123 kilobytes isn't large for a PDF file.
>
> The title attribute could be used for other purposes, like giving an
> expanded version of the name of the linked document.
>
> --
> Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
>
>
> ----
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>


--
Lori K. Brown
User Interface Engineer
SiteScape, Inc.


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: Michael Burks
Date: Tue, Apr 29 2003 4:55AM
Subject: RE: Indicating a non-html link
← Previous message | No next message

You might want to consider providing links to viewers on non HTML
Documents.

Also I would be very careful about posting MS Word documents they can
contain viruses. I would post RTF instead.

Sincerely,

Mike Burks