Edit comment LC-2868 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to LC-2855 LC-2864 LC-2868

Comment LC-2868

Comment Shortname:

Commenter: Sailesh Pangchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>

Message-id:

Section of the document concerned:

[Free text description]Document as a wholeUnderstanding Guideline 1.1: Provide text alternatives for any non-text co... Non-text Content: Understanding Success Criterion 1.1.1 Understanding Guideline 1.2: Provide alternatives for time-based media. Audio-only and Video-only (Prerecorded): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.1 Captions (Prerecorded): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.2 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded): Understanding Succes... Captions (Live): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.1 Audio Description (Prerecorded): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.2 Sign Language (Prerecorded): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.1 Extended Audio Description (Prerecorded): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.2 Media Alternative (Prerecorded): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.3 Audio-only (Live): Understanding Success Criterion 1.2.4 Understanding Guideline 1.3: Create content that can be presented in diffe... Info and Relationships: Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.1 Meaningful Sequence: Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.2 Sensory Characteristics: Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.3 Understanding Guideline 1.4: Make it easier for users to see and hear cont... Use of Color: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.1 Audio Control: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.2 Contrast (Minimum): Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.1 Resize text: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.2 Images of Text: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.3 Contrast (Enhanced): Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.1 Low or No Background Audio: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.2 Visual Presentation: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.3 Images of Text (No Exception): Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.4 Understanding Guideline 2.1: Make all functionality available from a keyboard. Keyboard: Understanding Success Criterion 2.1.1 No Keyboard Trap: Understanding Success Criterion 2.1.2 Keyboard (No Exception): Understanding Success Criterion 2.1.1 Understanding Guideline 2.2: Provide users enough time to read and use content. Timing Adjustable: Understanding Success Criterion 2.2.1 Pause, Stop, Hide: Understanding Success Criterion 2.2.2 No Timing: Understanding Success Criterion 2.2.1 Interruptions: Understanding Success Criterion 2.2.2 Re-authenticating: Understanding Success Criterion 2.2.3 Understanding Guideline 2.3: Do not design content in a way that is known ... Three Flashes or Below Threshold: Understanding Success Criterion 2.3.1 Three Flashes: Understanding Success Criterion 2.3.1 Understanding Guideline 2.4: Provide ways to help users navigate, find con... Bypass Blocks: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.1 Page Titled: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2 Focus Order: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.3 Link Purpose (In Context): Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.4 Multiple Ways: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.1 Headings and Labels: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2 Focus Visible: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.3 Location: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.1 Link Purpose (Link Only): Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.2 Section Headings: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.3 Understanding Guideline 3.1: Make text content readable and understandable. Language of Page: Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.1 Language of Parts: Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.1 Unusual Words: Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.1 Abbreviations: Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.2 Reading Level: Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.3 Pronunciation: Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.4 Understanding Guideline 3.2: Make Web pages appear and operate in predicta... On Focus: Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.1 On Input: Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.2 Consistent Navigation: Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.1 Consistent Identification: Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.2 Change on Request: Understanding Success Criterion 3.2.1 Understanding Guideline 3.3: Help users avoid and correct mistakes. Error Identification: Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.1 Labels or Instructions: Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.2 Error Suggestion: Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.1 Error Prevention (Legal, Financial, Data): Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.2 Help: Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.1 Error Prevention (All): Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.2 Understanding Guideline 4.1: Maximize compatibility with current and futur... Parsing: Understanding Success Criterion 4.1.1 Name, Role, Value: Understanding Success Criterion 4.1.2 Understanding Conformance Appendix A: How to refer to WCAG 2.0 from other documents Appendix B: Documenting Accessibility Support for Uses of a Web Technology Appendix C: Understanding Metadata Appendix D: References
or

Refinement of the section concerned:

Status:

open proposal pending resolved_yes resolved_no resolved_partial other assigned to Nobody Abma, Jake Abou-Zahra, Shadi Allan, Jim Auclair, Christopher Avila, Jonathan Babinszki, Tom Bailey, Bruce Bernard, Renaldo Bernier, Alex Blake, Matthew Boudreau, Denis Brewer, Judy Butler, Shari Campbell, Alastair Carlson, Laura Chakravarthula, Srinivasu Cirrincione, Pietro Conway, Vivienne Cooper, Michael Crutchfield, Elizabeth Deltour, Romain Dick, Wayne Ding, Chaohai Dirks, Kim Dixit, Shwetank Draffan, E.A. Duggin, Alistair Eggert, Eric Elledge, Michael Faulkner, Steve Ferraz, Reinaldo Fiers, Wilco Fischer, Detlev Foliot, John Garrish, Matt Garrison, Alistair Gower, Michael Guarino Reid, Loretta Hakkinen, Markku Haritos-Shea, Katie Henry, Shawn Hoffmann, Thomas Horton, Sarah Isager, Kasper Jensen, Tobias Christian Johansson, Stefan Johlic, Marc Johnson, Rick Jones, Crystal Joys Andersen, Wilhelm Kapoor, Shilpi Keim, Oliver Kirkpatrick, Andrew Kirkwood, John Kiss, Jason Kraft, Maureen Ku, JaEun Kurapati, Sujasree Lauke, Patrick Lauriat, Shawn Lee, Steve Lemon, Gez Li, Alex Li, Kepeng Li, Liangcheng Loiselle, Chris Lowney, Greg Lui, Edwina Lund, Adam Ma, Jia MacDonald, David Mace, Amanda Manser, Erich Martin, Debra McCormack, Scott McMeeking, Chris McSorley, Jan Milliken, Neil Montgomery, Rachael Mueller, Mary Jo nicole, windmann Niemann, Gundula Nurthen, James O Connor, Joshue Oh, Jeong-Hun Panchang, Sailesh Pandhi, Charu Pasi, Aparna Patch, Kimberly Philipp, Melanie Pluke, Mike Pouncey, Ian Repsher, Stephen Rochford, John Runyan, Marla Savva, Andreas Sawczyn, Steve Schnabel, Stefan Seeman-Kestenbaum, Lisa Sims, Glenda Singh, Avneesh Skotkjerra, Stein Erik Sloan, David Smith, Alan Smith, Jim Solomon, Adam Spellman, Jeanne F Strobbe, Christophe Suprock, Greg Swallow, David Thompson, Kenneth Thyme, Anne Ueki, Makoto Vaishnav, Jatin Vanderheiden, Gregg Venkata, Manoj Wahlbin, Kathleen Wang, Can WANG, WEI White, Jason Zelmanowicz, Erica Zerner, Adam Zhang, Mengni

Type: substantive editorial typo question general comment undefined

Resolution status:

Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter

Response status:

No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):

Comment:

In trying to determine if links with same href but different link-text violate WCAG2 I came across this statements:
As per SC 2.4.4(A):
"Links with the same destination should have the same descriptions (per
Success Criterion 3.2.4), ..."
===
However, SC 3.2.4 clarifies that not having identical text does not create a failure. So someone reading the above statement in the explanation for SC 2.4.4 will certainly conclude otherwise.
Extracts from SC 3.2.4 explanation:
While it is desirable and best practice always to be consistent within a single web page, 3.2.4 only addresses consistency within a set of web pages where something is repeated on more than one page in the set.
Also:
Note 1: Text alternatives that are "consistent" are not always "identical."
And from an example:
To meet the Success Criterion, the link text for these two links need only be consistent, not identical. But best practice is to have identical text so that when users encounter the
second one, it is clear that it goes to the same place as the first.






Proposed Change:
Suggested fix to the sentence under SC 2.4.4:
While it is a best practice for links with the same destination to have the same descriptions (per Success Criterion 3.2.4), ..."

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes:

Resolution: Thank you for your comment. It seems that there may be a misunderstanding of the 2.4.4 understanding text. There is no requirement implied that the links _must_ have the same descriptions, just that they should. Your point about 3.2.4 only applying to links in sets of pages is correct, so we propose modifying the sentence in 2.4.4 to: It is a best practice for links with the same destination to have consistent descriptions (and this is a requirement per Success Criterion 3.2.4 for pages in a set). It is also a best practice for links with different purposes and destinations to have different descriptions.

(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)