WCAG 2 (2.4.4 vs. 2.4.9)
Home / Legal Issues & Web Standards / WCAG 2 (2.4.4 vs. 2.4.9)
What is the difference between 2.4.4 and 2.4.9 when posting to a downlodable document?
I am aware that 2.4.4 would require me to post the file type in my text link.
Do I have different options with 2.4.9?
How is it different when posting to a downlodable document?
Share: 
Firstly, I don't think there's any difference whether you are posting to a document available for download or not. It's good practice to include stuff like "244kb PDF" but I can't find a reference that says it's mandatory. Then again it is referenced in the WCAG 2.0 examples which would suggest that at least they would like you to.
Anyway, the difference between 2.4.4 and 2.4.9 is :
| Quote: |
| this link to my website satisfies 2.4.4 |
...as the information about where the link goes is provided in context in the area immediately around the link
whereas this is required for 2.4.9
| Quote: |
| or you could visit the accessibility resource AccessifyForum |
There is however one exception - if the destination of the link would be ambiguous in all cases until it has been clicked - this could be mystery links...
| Quote: |
| this link goes somewhere |
or links which could go to a definition, an encylopedia entry, a glossary, or one of a number of different items...
| Quote: |
| This was provided in hard currency |
Hope this helps...
_________________
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
I am not disputing whether it is good or bad practice. But some sites link to PDF's, ZIP, Word, Excel, or other downlodable files.
If that is the situation how is text linking in WCAG 2.0/2.4.4 different from text linking in 2.4.9.
You were emphasizing general text linking. "General" text linking is not the question.
Share:
| wcag2 wrote: |
| If that is the situation how is text linking in WCAG 2.0/2.4.4 different from text linking in 2.4.9. |
Read the post more carefully. I have explained in detail the difference between 2.4.4 and 2.4.9. 2.4.4. and 2.4.9 differ in terms of context/link only only.
There's no difference as regards downloadable documents. I can't put information into the WCAG 2.0 normative documents that isn't there...!
_________________
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
Please take a look at H30 and G189. Can I pass checkpoint 2.4.4 if I adopt H30 (a href="history.pdf" img src="pdficon.gif alt="PDF format) , but ignore G189 <a href="history.pdf" class="hist">The History of the Web(PDF)</a>?
These are the only two samples I can find for download documents.
I already have G91.
The w3.org forum is confusing me.
What is actually required for 2.4.4 between these two results for downlodable documents?
Share:
Here are all the links for anyone who wants to join in:
- Checkpoint 2.4.4
- Checkpoint 2.4.9: Destination can be described by link text and nearby content.
- Technique H30: Destination can be described by link text only.
- Technique G91: Link text fully describes the target, although not the format.
- Technique G189: Link text fully describes the target and the format. (Don't do this via scripting or form controls, though!)
- How to meet 2.4.4: Doing any one or more of the "Sufficient Techniques" means you pass, technically.
- How to meet 2.4.9: Doing any one or more of the "Sufficient Techniques" means you pass, technically.
- Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.4: Link text only describes the format when multiple formats are listed after the document title has been introduced.
- Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.9: Link text is initially the same as 2.4.4 but can be altered or queried by the user to gain the document title.
- The link text Document Title with an icon whose alt text describes the format would be fine.
- Using the text Document Title (PDF) would be fine.
(EDIT) I just realised the fabulous irony of this link text: The History of the Web(PDF)!
_________________
My CV type thing and my Life of Ben (Blog). Nigel Peck's Accessify Forum Requirements.
Share:
Ta Ben, much linky goodness there.
The point I was trying to make is that there are two different types of WCAG 2.0 documents. There's WCAG 2.0 itself, which is the standard which is quotable (e.g. as provided in Ben's links to the checkpoints - [NB 'success criteria', Ben, don't forget the random changes to the language!]) which is described as normative, and there are the 'understanding' and 'techniques' documents which are non-normative.
Basically, normative documents form part of the standard while non-normative documents are advisory. (I'm sure there's a better definition out there, but that the way it sits in my head).
| wcag2 wrote: |
| What is actually required for 2.4.4 between these two results for downlodable documents? |
There is no requirement for the link format to be explained, although, since it is shown in some of the examples, it would seem to make sense to assume that this is preferred (it may be considered advisory, but not mandatory). So in short, it's not required for 2.4.4 or 2.4.9
_________________
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
My boss is "against" technique G189. However, I thought of using technique C7+G189 (description of file type and file size+hide information).
The WAI Working Group is giving me a runaround.
1) Additional questions include: What is sufficient when the visited site already complies?
2) If the PDF I am referring to on visited site is split into two or more PDF's, what needs to be done? Is the page that provides the PDF's sufficient, or do I need to add extra links to make up for one document.
3) Can I link to their HTML version and ignore the file type and size?
Share:
Did I forget to mention I am trying to meet Succesion Criteria 2.4.4 with downlodable documents?
At the moment we have G189+C7. WCAG 2 gives an example to show file tye and size. But since my boss is against it, the information is hidden.
What will be sufficient to satify my boss+Succession Crieria 2.4.4?
The Succesion Criteria for 2.4.4 says C7 is sufficient, but others say it is illegal, and disabled viewers will be at a disadvantage.
I am not disabled, and I see the same thing. Since I am at the same disadvantage, why would it be wrong?
Share:
| wcag2 wrote: |
| My boss is "against" technique G189.... |
The thing with the techniques is that they are:
| WCAG 2.0 Techniques wrote: |
| Please note that the contents of this document are informative (they provide guidance), and not normative (they do not set requirements for conforming to WCAG 2.0). |
...so they aren't a requirement.
There is no requirement to state the format type of the link to comply with WCAG 2.0
But if you want to include the additional information - but not visibly - you could use the title attribute, or you could try would be to use image replacement in the link - have
| Code: |
| <a href="#">Downloadable document <span>163kb PDF</span></a> |
...and use image replacement to hide the span from visual browsers and replace with a PDF icon.
| wcag2 wrote: |
| 1) Additional questions include: What is sufficient when the visited site already complies? |
By the visited site, I presume you mean the one where you'd download the doucment from is already WCAG 2.0 compliant. This is not relevant to your site; you have no obligation under WCAG 2.0 to ensure that where you link to is accessible.
| wcag2 wrote: |
| 2) If the PDF I am referring to on visited site is split into two or more PDF's, what needs to be done? Is the page that provides the PDF's sufficient, or do I need to add extra links to make up for one document. |
| wcag2 wrote: |
| 3) Can I link to their HTML version and ignore the file type and size? |
_________________
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
| JackP wrote: |
| I would generally link to the page from which they can obtain the document. This is particularly beneficial if this page already provides the format information and/or offers downloads in more than one format. |
It also means that if they release a newer version of the document your users will know about it, rather than continue being linked to an older version (which might even be taken offline, leaving you with a broken link).
In terms of link text for documents, it may not be a WCAG 2.0 requirement to state link format, but I'd say that it is essential for general usability and therefore should be present and visible. Linking to a download will instigate an action which users won't expect unless you tell them. Some users may not know how to handle this, and in user testing I've seen countless examples of users opening a PDF, not wanting it, and closing the entire browser thinking that the PDF is separate to the preceding page.
Why is your boss against it? Perhaps she/he doesn't appreciate the issues and needs some gentle persuasion?
_________________
James Coltham - Local gov web manager by day, web and accessibility blogger at lunchtime, freelancer by night. Tweets at @prettysimple.
Share:
It is not my responsibility to question my boss's opinion. It is my responsibility to the job that my boss asked.
The WAI Working Group gave me two scenarios for this:
1) C7 (hiding information) is illega
2) It can only be used if the following exception was met:
Where the purpose of the link would be "ambiguous to users in general".
I am not sure what to look for in my text link to determine if it is meets the exception.
Share:
| wcag2 wrote: |
| 1) C7 (hiding information) is illega[l] |
Sorry? Where does this information come from? I can't find anything in C7 which says this...
If you read the information I have given above, I have supplied information about ambiguous link text. Other than that, I'm not really sure what to tell you: I've provided the information you were after...
_________________
Jack Pickard The Pickards Information Services| Blog | Twit
Share:
Jack,
I agree, I can't find that quote in C7 anywhere either. And, to be perfectly honest, the previous answers and information relayed in this topic are more than enough to satisfy anybody's request for interpretation of the subject Guidelines.
_________________
Working at: Accessible Web & Training Solutions | Having fun at: The Dog's Blog
Share:
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum