E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 4 (In chronological order)

From: Weissenberger, Todd M
Date: Mon, Jun 16 2014 1:21PM
Subject: Are shorter URLs an accessibility feature?
No previous message | Next message →

One of our student disability groups on campus is creating a new website, and they would like to use a top level domain URL. Their rationale is that a simpler URL could provide an accessibility boost due to its simplicity and brevity.

Our university hostmaster is resisting this request, as the resource is linkable from other sites on campus.

Has anybody considered this before? Does it make any sense?

Thanks,
Todd

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Mon, Jun 16 2014 1:29PM
Subject: Re: Are shorter URLs an accessibility feature?
← Previous message | Next message →

For a mobility impaired user (or myself using Voiceover with on-screen
iOS keyboard, at an average speed of 3 words a week), it may sound
tempting and accessible on the surface.
But the problem with shortened URLs is that you are very unlikely to
get an easy-to-remember, or intuitive URL. There is a lot to be said
for intuitive URLs in general, some say it is a form of accessibility,
though I would not go that far necessarily, as long as the page titles
are descriptive.
Also a user will generally get to that page either via bookmark (if
frequently used) or via an external link, such as from another
website/web search.
So I do not see pure accessibility value in short (particularly
shortened) URLs as such.
I definitely fail to see how WCAG could be made relevant to this idea.

Cheers
-B

On 6/16/14, Weissenberger, Todd M < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> One of our student disability groups on campus is creating a new website,
> and they would like to use a top level domain URL. Their rationale is that a
> simpler URL could provide an accessibility boost due to its simplicity and
> brevity.
>
> Our university hostmaster is resisting this request, as the resource is
> linkable from other sites on campus.
>
> Has anybody considered this before? Does it make any sense?
>
> Thanks,
> Todd
> > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: Mon, Jun 16 2014 2:21PM
Subject: Re: Are shorter URLs an accessibility feature?
← Previous message | Next message →

I agree that shortened URLs that are not intuitive or easy to remember can
be difficult for accessibility.

However, if it is not impossible for them (especially when using the more
common shortener sites such as bitly) to be made unique or intuitive. If
your university ends up making their own URL shortener, you will find it
much easier to create unique URLs to fit your needs

I would argue that some disabilities, particularly those of us with memory
or cognitive issues, may find these to be helpful. Sure, many people could
be using bookmarks or via web search, but there are the instances when
someone may be reading a magazine or printed pamphlet and benefit from a
short URL. There are times when I need to write down a URL, and
'bit.ly/wcag20p1' is way easier to remember than
www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#perceivable.

I'm not sure why WCAG was brought up, but perhaps 1.3.1 or 4.1.2? Kudos
for ever considering AAA, but 2.4.9 would be a pretty obvious one to me.

-Jon



On 6/16/14, 3:29 PM, "Birkir R. Gunnarsson" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

>For a mobility impaired user (or myself using Voiceover with on-screen
>iOS keyboard, at an average speed of 3 words a week), it may sound
>tempting and accessible on the surface.
>But the problem with shortened URLs is that you are very unlikely to
>get an easy-to-remember, or intuitive URL. There is a lot to be said
>for intuitive URLs in general, some say it is a form of accessibility,
>though I would not go that far necessarily, as long as the page titles
>are descriptive.
>Also a user will generally get to that page either via bookmark (if
>frequently used) or via an external link, such as from another
>website/web search.
>So I do not see pure accessibility value in short (particularly
>shortened) URLs as such.
>I definitely fail to see how WCAG could be made relevant to this idea.
>
>Cheers
>-B
>
>On 6/16/14, Weissenberger, Todd M < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> One of our student disability groups on campus is creating a new
>>website,
>> and they would like to use a top level domain URL. Their rationale is
>>that a
>> simpler URL could provide an accessibility boost due to its simplicity
>>and
>> brevity.
>>
>> Our university hostmaster is resisting this request, as the resource is
>> linkable from other sites on campus.
>>
>> Has anybody considered this before? Does it make any sense?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Todd
>> >> >> >>
>
>
>--
>Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
>>>

From: Jim Allan
Date: Mon, Jun 16 2014 3:38PM
Subject: Re: Are shorter URLs an accessibility feature?
← Previous message | No next message

When I read the original post I thought of CMSs or other database driven
sites that have urls to specific pages (or sub-sites) that maybe 50+
characters long. Having a top level (foo.someplace.edu) or a directory off
of the main url - www.school.edu/student-a11y will be lots shorter and
easier to remember. For those using alternative input anything is better
than 50+ characters with % # ? and = scattered throughout.
Jim


On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Jonathan Metz < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> I agree that shortened URLs that are not intuitive or easy to remember can
> be difficult for accessibility.
>
> However, if it is not impossible for them (especially when using the more
> common shortener sites such as bitly) to be made unique or intuitive. If
> your university ends up making their own URL shortener, you will find it
> much easier to create unique URLs to fit your needs
>
> I would argue that some disabilities, particularly those of us with memory
> or cognitive issues, may find these to be helpful. Sure, many people could
> be using bookmarks or via web search, but there are the instances when
> someone may be reading a magazine or printed pamphlet and benefit from a
> short URL. There are times when I need to write down a URL, and
> 'bit.ly/wcag20p1' is way easier to remember than
> www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#perceivable.
>
> I'm not sure why WCAG was brought up, but perhaps 1.3.1 or 4.1.2? Kudos
> for ever considering AAA, but 2.4.9 would be a pretty obvious one to me.
>
> -Jon
>
>
>
> On 6/16/14, 3:29 PM, "Birkir R. Gunnarsson" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> >For a mobility impaired user (or myself using Voiceover with on-screen
> >iOS keyboard, at an average speed of 3 words a week), it may sound
> >tempting and accessible on the surface.
> >But the problem with shortened URLs is that you are very unlikely to
> >get an easy-to-remember, or intuitive URL. There is a lot to be said
> >for intuitive URLs in general, some say it is a form of accessibility,
> >though I would not go that far necessarily, as long as the page titles
> >are descriptive.
> >Also a user will generally get to that page either via bookmark (if
> >frequently used) or via an external link, such as from another
> >website/web search.
> >So I do not see pure accessibility value in short (particularly
> >shortened) URLs as such.
> >I definitely fail to see how WCAG could be made relevant to this idea.
> >
> >Cheers
> >-B
> >
> >On 6/16/14, Weissenberger, Todd M < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >> One of our student disability groups on campus is creating a new
> >>website,
> >> and they would like to use a top level domain URL. Their rationale is
> >>that a
> >> simpler URL could provide an accessibility boost due to its simplicity
> >>and
> >> brevity.
> >>
> >> Our university hostmaster is resisting this request, as the resource is
> >> linkable from other sites on campus.
> >>
> >> Has anybody considered this before? Does it make any sense?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Todd
> >> > >> > >> > >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> >> >> >>
> > > >



--
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator & Webmaster
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315 fax: 512.206.9264 http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964