E-mail List Archives
Thread: Links vs. static text URLs
Number of posts in this thread: 4 (In chronological order)
From: Wright, Eric [USA]
Date: Mon, Jul 25 2016 8:59AM
Subject: Links vs. static text URLs
No previous message | Next message →
It seems intuitive that when working with authoring tools that allow you to create hypertext, active links should be preferred to static text URLs. The text <p>https://www.example.com</p<https://www.example.com%3c/p>> is not focusable or actionable. It basically requires a user who wants to reference that URL to understand a string of text as a URL, and then copy and paste it into a browser's address bar. That said, would it be fair to fail such a construction under the WCAG 2.0 Parsing success criteria? Is there a better way to map this failure - or am I wrong to presume it a failure?
Thanks,
Eric Wright
Lead Technologist
Mobile 802-310-9138
www.boozallen.com<;http://www.boozallen.com/>;
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Jul 25 2016 9:02AM
Subject: Re: Links vs. static text URLs
← Previous message | Next message →
On 25/07/2016 15:59, Wright, Eric [USA] wrote:
> It seems intuitive that when working with authoring tools that allow
> you to create hypertext, active links should be preferred to static
> text URLs. The text
> <p>https://www.example.com</p<https://www.example.com%3c/p>> is not
> focusable or actionable. It basically requires a user who wants to
> reference that URL to understand a string of text as a URL, and then
> copy and paste it into a browser's address bar. That said, would it
> be fair to fail such a construction under the WCAG 2.0 Parsing
> success criteria? Is there a better way to map this failure - or am I
> wrong to presume it a failure?
I'd say it's a problem that affects all users, not just those users with
potential disabilities, so not a specific WCAG failure, more of a
general usability issue.
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: whitneyq
Date: Mon, Jul 25 2016 11:49AM
Subject: Re: Links vs. static text URLs
← Previous message | Next message →
And I'd want to see the context.Â
For example I've seen situations where the active link is on a more descriptive set of words, but the URL is provided for visibility if printed.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: "Patrick H. Lauke" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > Date: 7/25/16 11:02 AM (GMT-05:00) To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Links vs. static text URLs
On 25/07/2016 15:59, Wright, Eric [USA] wrote:
> It seems intuitive that when working with authoring tools that allow
> you to create hypertext, active links should be preferred to static
> text URLs. The text
> <p>https://www.example.com</p<https://www.example.com%3c/p>> is not
> focusable or actionable. It basically requires a user who wants to
> reference that URL to understand a string of text as a URL, and then
> copy and paste it into a browser's address bar. That said, would it
> be fair to fail such a construction under the WCAG 2.0 Parsing
> success criteria? Is there a better way to map this failure - or am I
> wrong to presume it a failure?
I'd say it's a problem that affects all users, not just those users with
potential disabilities, so not a specific WCAG failure, more of a
general usability issue.
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: Wright, Eric [USA]
Date: Mon, Jul 25 2016 12:43PM
Subject: Re: [External] Links vs. static text URLs
← Previous message | No next message
>> I'd say it's a problem that affects all users, not just those users with
>>potential disabilities, so not a specific WCAG failure, more of a
>>general usability issue.
>>P
Thanks Patrick, makes sense to me.
>> And I'd want to see the context.
Mostly webpages and PDFs. For the latter, it seems like if you're going to go to the trouble of tagging a PDF then adding a [Link] and [Link-OBJR] tag to a string of text that resembles (is?) a web address is trivial. For webpages, I couldn't imagine a scenario where I'd type a URL to a website without linking it (until you pointed one out below!), but it's distressingly common.
>>For example I've seen situations where the active link is on a more descriptive set of words, but the URL is provided for visibility if printed.
That's clever! Strikes me as a "best of both worlds" scenario. Provided that the plain URL is associated with the link (through proximity, reference, or another structure), I'd be inclined to call this a non-issue. The link is still there (on the descriptive words) for folks who want an easy way to retrieve the linked content.
Eric Wright
Lead Technologist
Mobile 802-310-9138
www.boozallen.com