E-mail List Archives
Thread: Where does invisible link text fail WCAG2?
Number of posts in this thread: 8 (In chronological order)
From: Lynn Holdsworth
Date: Mon, Jul 20 2015 10:06AM
Subject: Where does invisible link text fail WCAG2?
No previous message | Next message →
Hi all,
We have a weird issue where the text on some links is available to
screenreaders but not visible using a keyboard. So when a keyboard
user tabs to the link, they only get to see a tiny focus rectangle.
Where (if at all) does this one fail WCAG2? Feels like it should be an
info and relationships or a labels issue, but I can'tfind a specific
criterion to fail it under.
Thanks as always, Lyn
From: Moore,Michael (HHSC)
Date: Mon, Jul 20 2015 10:17AM
Subject: Re: Where does invisible link text fail WCAG2?
← Previous message | Next message →
I would mark the following as failures for a AA audit. 1.4.3 Contrast minimum. The invisible text obviously does not have sufficient contrast to be read by anyone. Also, 2.1.1 Keyboard. You cannot operate something via the keyboard if you do not know what it does.
Mike Moore
Accessibility Coordinator
Texas Health and Human Services Commission
Civil Rights Office
(512) 438-3431 (Office)
(512) 574-0091 (Cell)
-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Lynn Holdsworth
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 11:07 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [WebAIM] Where does invisible link text fail WCAG2?
Hi all,
We have a weird issue where the text on some links is available to screenreaders but not visible using a keyboard. So when a keyboard user tabs to the link, they only get to see a tiny focus rectangle.
Where (if at all) does this one fail WCAG2? Feels like it should be an info and relationships or a labels issue, but I can'tfind a specific criterion to fail it under.
Thanks as always, Lyn
From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Jul 20 2015 10:18AM
Subject: Re: Where does invisible link text fail WCAG2?
← Previous message | Next message →
Lynn Holdsworth wrote:
> Where (if at all) does this one fail WCAG2? Feels like it should be an
> info and relationships or a labels issue, but I can'tfind a specific
> criterion to fail it under.
These types of statements always cause me concern. If you can't find a
WCAG failure would it not be documented as an issue? It's clearly an
accessibility and usability issue and should be noted as such even if
it isn't a WCAG failure.
Remember that WCAG only deals with accessibility for users with
disabilities - if something's inaccessible to nearly everyone (as is
the case with invisible link text), then it's not a WCAG failure. This
is why things like white text on a white background (at Level A), 1
pixel sized text, entirely ambiguous link text (such as "here"), etc.
are not WCAG failures, even though they are all significant
accessibility and usability issues.
Jared
From: Lynn Holdsworth
Date: Mon, Jul 20 2015 10:25AM
Subject: Re: Where does invisible link text fail WCAG2?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Jared,
Thanks for your comments.
This is only a failure for keyboard users. the links are invisible to
mouse users because they're replaced by another mechanism. I suspect
the developers have made these available specifically for screenreader
users, but they're likely to cause difficulty for sighted keyboard
users because it's the only mechanism for them too.
I don't have any statistics around how many people use a keyboard to
mitigate for a disability. If there aren't many, then I guess this
turns into a usability issue.
KR, Lynn
On 20/07/2015, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Lynn Holdsworth wrote:
>
>> Where (if at all) does this one fail WCAG2? Feels like it should be an
>> info and relationships or a labels issue, but I can'tfind a specific
>> criterion to fail it under.
>
> These types of statements always cause me concern. If you can't find a
> WCAG failure would it not be documented as an issue? It's clearly an
> accessibility and usability issue and should be noted as such even if
> it isn't a WCAG failure.
>
> Remember that WCAG only deals with accessibility for users with
> disabilities - if something's inaccessible to nearly everyone (as is
> the case with invisible link text), then it's not a WCAG failure. This
> is why things like white text on a white background (at Level A), 1
> pixel sized text, entirely ambiguous link text (such as "here"), etc.
> are not WCAG failures, even though they are all significant
> accessibility and usability issues.
>
> Jared
> > > > >
From: Lynn Holdsworth
Date: Mon, Jul 20 2015 10:28AM
Subject: Re: Where does invisible link text fail WCAG2?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Michael,
Thanks for those useful suggestions.
I can't really fail it on contrast, because it's been resized to 1px
to make it invisible so there's no contrast to test.
But yes, I should be able to fail it under keyboard operable.
Cheers, Lynn
On 20/07/2015, Moore,Michael (HHSC) < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I would mark the following as failures for a AA audit. 1.4.3 Contrast
> minimum. The invisible text obviously does not have sufficient contrast to
> be read by anyone. Also, 2.1.1 Keyboard. You cannot operate something via
> the keyboard if you do not know what it does.
>
> Mike Moore
> Accessibility Coordinator
> Texas Health and Human Services Commission
> Civil Rights Office
> (512) 438-3431 (Office)
> (512) 574-0091 (Cell)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Lynn Holdsworth
> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 11:07 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [WebAIM] Where does invisible link text fail WCAG2?
>
> Hi all,
>
> We have a weird issue where the text on some links is available to
> screenreaders but not visible using a keyboard. So when a keyboard user tabs
> to the link, they only get to see a tiny focus rectangle.
>
> Where (if at all) does this one fail WCAG2? Feels like it should be an info
> and relationships or a labels issue, but I can'tfind a specific criterion to
> fail it under.
>
> Thanks as always, Lyn
> > > http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > >
From: deborah.kaplan@suberic.net
Date: Mon, Jul 20 2015 10:34AM
Subject: Re: Where does invisible link text fail WCAG2?
← Previous message | Next message →
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Lynn Holdsworth wrote:
> I don't have any statistics around how many people use a keyboard to
> mitigate for a disability. If there aren't many, then I guess this
> turns into a usability issue.
No, if there were not many keyboard users, that actually wouldn't turn
this accessibility issue into a usability issue. It is still an
accessibility issue for all of those speech recognition and keyboard
users (much speech recognition navigation comes from emulating the
keyboard).
Now the fact is, there actually are a large number (not that I have any
of the statistics at my fingertips). But there's no caveat in WCAG saying
that if there are only a small number of people with a disability, their
accessibility needs don't exist. If you want to create an accessible
site, you have to accommodate users with accessibility needs, without
trying to anticipate how many of those users exist. If your site isn't
accessible to keyboard users, you will think there are no
keyboard-only/speech recognition users in the world, because none of
us will come to your site.
Deborah Kaplan
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Jul 20 2015 10:57AM
Subject: Re: Where does invisible link text fail WCAG2?
← Previous message | Next message →
On 20/07/2015 17:18, Jared Smith wrote:
> These types of statements always cause me concern. If you can't find a
> WCAG failure would it not be documented as an issue? It's clearly an
> accessibility and usability issue and should be noted as such even if
> it isn't a WCAG failure.
Indeed (also relating to the other thread about tiny clickable
elements). In my reports, I often include an issue, explain that
*nominally* a tested page/site passes the letter of WCAG, but that
nonetheless there are things that should be fixed (same goes for, say,
still including a skip link, despite the use of landmark roles and
proper heading structure, to account for keyboard users without any
special AT).
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
From: chaals@yandex-team.ru
Date: Mon, Jul 20 2015 5:06PM
Subject: Re: Where does invisible link text fail WCAG2?
← Previous message | No next message
- lynn.holdsworth@
20.07.2015, 18:28, "Lynn Holdsworth" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks for those useful suggestions.
>
> I can't really fail it on contrast, because it's been resized to 1px
> to make it invisible so there's no contrast to test.
Zero contrast sounds like there is insufficient contrast to meâ¦
The requirement is that users can determine that it is there. I don't think there is anything in WCAG that makes it clear, but "sufficient contrast to be perceivable" generally requires being a certain size as well as colour combination.
Has anyone here filed a bug on WCAG or its associated documents for this issue? I think that would be a useful thing to do - so if the answer is no, I'll do it.
> But yes, I should be able to fail it under keyboard operable.
>
> Cheers, Lynn
>
--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = - - - Find more at http://yandex.com