E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 12 (In chronological order)

From: Gary Williamson
Date: Tue, Feb 03 2009 6:45AM
Subject: AA? standard
No previous message | Next message →

Hi. I carry out some work for a pretty high profile public body and wondered
if someone can clarify what accessibility standard (as defined by law)
public bodies should be working to and whether the use of Click Here is
contrary to that standard.



thanks



Gary

From: Steve Green
Date: Tue, Feb 03 2009 7:30AM
Subject: Re: AA? standard
← Previous message | Next message →

I'm at home at the moment so I can't lay my hands on the reference, but my
recollection is that no accessibility standards or guidelines are mandated
by law. Government guidelines state that public sector websites must meet
WCAG AA but this is not a legal requirement and is certainly not enforced
effectively.

All UK websites including public sector ones are subject to the DDA, which
is a legal requirement but it is not a technical standard. Only a court can
rule on whether a website is compliant or not, but its ruling only applies
to that particular plaintiff and their particular circumstances, so a
website may be DDA compliant in respect of one person but not another.

With regard to the phrase "Click Here", it does not violate any WCAG
checkpoint or create an accessibility barrier for any user group that I am
aware of. It is redundant if appropriate link text is used and it adds a
tiny amount of noise for screen reader users.

We recently did some user testing with a person with moderate learning
disability. She often failed to notice links even though they had
appropriate link text, and felt that "Click here" would have drawn her
attention to them. I'm not sure that she has drawn the correct conclusion
because there are other factors such as the link position and styling, but
it is a reminder that theoretical 'best practices' are not always so in
practice. User testing is where we learn the real lessons, and sometimes
there is no 'right answer'.

Steve



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gary
Williamson
Sent: 03 February 2009 13:42
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [WebAIM] AA? standard


Hi. I carry out some work for a pretty high profile public body and wondered
if someone can clarify what accessibility standard (as defined by law)
public bodies should be working to and whether the use of Click Here is
contrary to that standard.



thanks



Gary

From: Moore, Michael
Date: Tue, Feb 03 2009 7:45AM
Subject: Re: AA? standard
← Previous message | Next message →

<gary>
Hi. I carry out some work for a pretty high profile public body and
wondered
if someone can clarify what accessibility standard (as defined by law)
public bodies should be working to and whether the use of Click Here is
contrary to that standard.
</gary>


<mike>
That's kind of a difficult question to answer because it depends on your
location and the type of entity that you are.

For example, I work for a Texas State Agency and by law we are required
to meet the accessibility requirements that are set in Texas State law.
These are based on Section 508 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act. We
also have an additional obligation to meet the federal 508 standards
since we receive funds from the Federal Government. Finally because we
are an employer and a public agency we have obligations to provide
reasonable accommodation in the workplace and public access through
Title 1 and Title 2 of the ADA. However there are no specific
accessibility standards or guidelines for electronic information and
resources spelled out in the ADA.

Federal Agencies, with the exception of DOD are required to meet the
requirements of Section 508 and to purchase compliant goods and services
when they are available in the market place. If you are a private
company selling or providing IR related goods or services to Federal or
State governments you should check the purchase contract to determine
requirements for compliance.

Many non-US governments have their own laws and regulations surrounding
web and other forms of EIR accessibility. Most of these that I know of
are based upon the W3C WCAG Standards.

Finally US companies that provide goods and services over the internet
are beginning to assume some risk under the ADA. The Target case is one
good example. There is a very good discussion of this issue on Jim
Thatcher's web site http://jimthatcher.com/law-target.htm.

My personal recommendation for folks in the US is to at a minimum meet
the requirements of Section 508. Better would be to meet the WCAG 2.0
standards, which when properly applied tend to close some loopholes that
exist in 508. If your product, web site or web application works well
with assistive technologies, and you do not present barriers to people
who are deaf, hard of hearing or physically impaired then you have much
lower risk of facing litigation over accessibility. Compliance with
either 508 or WCAG would demonstrate that you were providing
reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities. But of course I
am not a lawyer so this is just my personal opinion.

Mike
</mike>


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gary
Williamson
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 7:42 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [WebAIM] AA? standard




thanks



Gary

From: Karlen Communications
Date: Tue, Feb 03 2009 7:50AM
Subject: Re: AA? standard
← Previous message | Next message →

This is a strong usability issue for me.

I use a screen reader and when doing training on accessible and usable
documents in general advocate for not using preface phrases such as click
here or select this link to go...in the actual link text. It can be used in
surrounding text, but not in the link text itself.

If I get a list of links and EVERY one of them starts with click here to
...I can't use first character navigation to quickly find the link I want. I
am forced to listen to all the links until I find the one I want. This
wastes time and is quite frustrating.

BTW I also "strongly dislike" the " more" "read more" and "more
information." More what? More information on what?

I don't have time to read the entire web page to look at the surrounding
text...I consistently use a list of headings, list of links, list of form
controls and the Find tool to quickly find the information I need.

It is the same as having PDF or Word after a topic to denote the document
format. I get a list of links that simply say "PDF, Word, PDF, Word, PDF,
Word" with no context. Again this is frustrating.

I realize that this is more a usability issue but as a person using a screen
reader, I don't like being forced to waste time reading entire web pages or
documents when I should be able to quickly find what I want...or find that
it is not on the current web page and move to another one.

I know this is not in any of the standards or guidelines and is only my 2
cents CAD. :-)

Cheers, Karen


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Steve Green
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 9:26 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] AA? standard

I'm at home at the moment so I can't lay my hands on the reference, but my
recollection is that no accessibility standards or guidelines are mandated
by law. Government guidelines state that public sector websites must meet
WCAG AA but this is not a legal requirement and is certainly not enforced
effectively.

All UK websites including public sector ones are subject to the DDA, which
is a legal requirement but it is not a technical standard. Only a court can
rule on whether a website is compliant or not, but its ruling only applies
to that particular plaintiff and their particular circumstances, so a
website may be DDA compliant in respect of one person but not another.

With regard to the phrase "Click Here", it does not violate any WCAG
checkpoint or create an accessibility barrier for any user group that I am
aware of. It is redundant if appropriate link text is used and it adds a
tiny amount of noise for screen reader users.

We recently did some user testing with a person with moderate learning
disability. She often failed to notice links even though they had
appropriate link text, and felt that "Click here" would have drawn her
attention to them. I'm not sure that she has drawn the correct conclusion
because there are other factors such as the link position and styling, but
it is a reminder that theoretical 'best practices' are not always so in
practice. User testing is where we learn the real lessons, and sometimes
there is no 'right answer'.

Steve



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gary
Williamson
Sent: 03 February 2009 13:42
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [WebAIM] AA? standard


Hi. I carry out some work for a pretty high profile public body and wondered
if someone can clarify what accessibility standard (as defined by law)
public bodies should be working to and whether the use of Click Here is
contrary to that standard.



thanks



Gary

From: Rahul Gonsalves
Date: Tue, Feb 03 2009 8:05AM
Subject: Re: AA? standard
← Previous message | Next message →

Gary,

On 03-Feb-09, at 7:12 PM, Gary Williamson wrote:

> Hi. I carry out some work for a pretty high profile public body and
> wondered
> if someone can clarify what accessibility standard (as defined by law)
> public bodies should be working to

Which country? Different bits of legislation apply to different
countries.

> [...] whether the use of Click Here is contrary to that standard.

If your standard is based off WCAG 2.0 (unlikely, since it's a new
release), then see 2.4.4:

2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context): The purpose of each link can be
determined from the link text alone or from the link text together
with its programmatically determined link context, except where the
purpose of the link would be ambiguous to users in general. (Level A)

Also 2.4.9:

2.4.9 Link Purpose (Link Only): A mechanism is available to allow the
purpose of each link to be identified from link text alone, except
where the purpose of the link would be ambiguous to users in general.
(Level AAA)

Best,
- Rahul.

From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Tue, Feb 03 2009 8:15AM
Subject: Re: AA? standard
← Previous message | Next message →

gary,

I think "Click Here" is considered poor practice in general since it does not describe the target of a link. People want to know where a link will take the. So click here is especially bad for screen reader users, since they now need to issue additional screen reading commands to get the context of the link.

I invite you to try the Illinois Functional Accessibility Evaluator Beta 8 version:

http://faeserv.dres.uiuc.edu

It is free tool. It was developed from perspective of "What do we want for people with disabilities", rather than "What is the minimum I need to do to comply" perspective. The best practices codify the requirements of FAE:

http://html.cita.uiuc.edu

The best practices ae based on web standards, so developers benefit from a web standards approach to design. So moving to this type of design can actually save people money in development and maintenance of websites and not only comply with accessibility requirements, but actually be usable by people with disabilities.

Hope this helps, good luck,

Jon


---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:42:11 -0000
>From:
>Subject: [WebAIM] AA? standard
>To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>Hi. I carry out some work for a pretty high profile public body and wondered
>if someone can clarify what accessibility standard (as defined by law)
>public bodies should be working to and whether the use of Click Here is
>contrary to that standard.
>
>
>
>thanks
>
>
>
>Gary
>
>
>
>

From: J. B-Vincent
Date: Tue, Feb 03 2009 8:20AM
Subject: Re: AA? standard
← Previous message | Next message →

Gary:
 
Since you're refering to "AA" rather than "Priority 2," I'm assuming this is based on the current U.S. standard, WCAG 2.0. The WCAG 1.0 equivalent is 13.1, "Clearly identify the target of each link. [Priority 2]"
 
So regardless of the standard, avoidance of "Click here" as the entire content of a link is covered.
 
Jane
 
---
Jane Vincent, A.M.L.S.
Usability/Accessibility Manager
Center for Accessible Technology
Berkeley, CA
www.cforat.org


--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Rahul Gonsalves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

From: Rahul Gonsalves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] AA? standard
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 7:02 AM

Gary,

On 03-Feb-09, at 7:12 PM, Gary Williamson wrote:

> Hi. I carry out some work for a pretty high profile public body and
> wondered
> if someone can clarify what accessibility standard (as defined by law)
> public bodies should be working to

Which country? Different bits of legislation apply to different
countries.

> [...] whether the use of Click Here is contrary to that standard.

If your standard is based off WCAG 2.0 (unlikely, since it's a new
release), then see 2.4.4:

2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context): The purpose of each link can be
determined from the link text alone or from the link text together
with its programmatically determined link context, except where the
purpose of the link would be ambiguous to users in general. (Level A)

Also 2.4.9:

2.4.9 Link Purpose (Link Only): A mechanism is available to allow the
purpose of each link to be identified from link text alone, except
where the purpose of the link would be ambiguous to users in general.
(Level AAA)

Best,
- Rahul.

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Date: Tue, Feb 03 2009 11:15AM
Subject: Re: AA? standard
← Previous message | Next message →

On 3/2/09 13:42, Gary Williamson wrote:
> I carry out some work for a pretty high profile public body and wondered
> if someone can clarify what accessibility standard (as defined by law)
> public bodies should be working to

Which principality's law?

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

From: Webb, KerryA
Date: Tue, Feb 03 2009 2:45PM
Subject: Re: AA? standard
← Previous message | Next message →

Jane wrote:

>
> Gary:
>
> Since you're refering to "AA" rather than "Priority 2," I'm assuming
this
> is based on the current U.S. standard, WCAG 2.0. The WCAG 1.0
equivalent
> is 13.1, "Clearly identify the target of each link. [Priority 2]"
>

Just being pedantic, but is it a US standard?

Kerry

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gary Williamson
Date: Wed, Feb 04 2009 1:45PM
Subject: Re: AA? standard
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Kerry

Thanks for your reply. It's a UK based organisation.

Regards

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Webb, KerryA [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: 03 February 2009 21:42
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] AA? standard

Jane wrote:

>
> Gary:
>
> Since you're refering to "AA" rather than "Priority 2," I'm assuming
this
> is based on the current U.S. standard, WCAG 2.0. The WCAG 1.0
equivalent
> is 13.1, "Clearly identify the target of each link. [Priority 2]"
>

Just being pedantic, but is it a US standard?

Kerry

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all
copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You
should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any
other person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gary Williamson
Date: Wed, Feb 04 2009 1:50PM
Subject: Re: AA? standard
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Rahul

Thanks for your reply. It's a UK based organisation.

Regards

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Rahul Gonsalves [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: 03 February 2009 15:02
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] AA? standard

Gary,

On 03-Feb-09, at 7:12 PM, Gary Williamson wrote:

> Hi. I carry out some work for a pretty high profile public body and
> wondered
> if someone can clarify what accessibility standard (as defined by law)
> public bodies should be working to

Which country? Different bits of legislation apply to different
countries.

> [...] whether the use of Click Here is contrary to that standard.

If your standard is based off WCAG 2.0 (unlikely, since it's a new
release), then see 2.4.4:

2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context): The purpose of each link can be
determined from the link text alone or from the link text together
with its programmatically determined link context, except where the
purpose of the link would be ambiguous to users in general. (Level A)

Also 2.4.9:

2.4.9 Link Purpose (Link Only): A mechanism is available to allow the
purpose of each link to be identified from link text alone, except
where the purpose of the link would be ambiguous to users in general.
(Level AAA)

Best,
- Rahul.

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Date: Wed, Feb 04 2009 2:10PM
Subject: Re: AA? standard
← Previous message | No next message

On 4/2/09 20:43, Gary Williamson wrote:
> Hi Rahul
>
> Thanks for your reply. It's a UK based organisation.

The archived guidance from 2007 is here:

http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-government/resources/localgovt-framework/section3.asp

It says:

"UK government policy is that conformance with these guidelines is to
level A, following Priority 1 recommendations. This is likely to be
raised by European legislation to level AA.

"To ensure conformance to the WAI accessibility standards we recommend
local authorities make this a contractual condition in any contracts
with third-party suppliers of web-enabled software or web content."

This is archived, so there may be newer guidance somewhere, but I don't
know where.

I think Rahul's point about clear link text applies.

Note that the government policy doesn't mention WCAG 1.0 or WCAG 2.0
specifically.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis