Forum Moderators: open
I talked with that webmaster about adding text links to the bottom of the page, with a link to them at the top. He understood the idea. What he's done, however, is create a page with content that's just a collection of text links to the various pages on the site (not quite a site map page, but close). Each page on his site now has "Access Text Links" in an appropriate place at the top, and it goes to that new page.
This is the first time I've seen it done this way, as opposed to a collection of text links on each page. Does anyone have any experience, educated guesses, intuition, etc., as to whether this would pass muster, especially with 508? Paragraph (l) [lower case L] says: "...if a web page uses a script to create a graphic map of menu choices when the user moves the pointer over an icon, the web site designer may be required to incorporate "redundant text links" that match the menu choices because functional text for each menu choice cannot be rendered to the assistive technology." But it doesn't appear to address whether those redundant text links must appear on each page or would be acceptible on a page of their own.
What do you think?
Commenting on the concept as a whole, I think you're adding an extra step to what is generally already an uphill climb for "challenged" visitors.
Depending on how the navigation is set up, it might be possible to add those links via <noscript> tags on each page. Then they'll only show up if javascript is off. It's been a while since I've played with screenreaders, but I think at least some of them will pick up on the <noscript> info. (It may also help search engines spider the site more completely.)
belladonna brings up the use of the
<noscript></noscript>6.3 Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported. If this is not possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative accessible page. [Priority 1]
For example, ensure that links that trigger scripts work when scripts are turned off or not supported (e.g., do not use "javascript:" as the link target). If it is not possible to make the page usable without scripts, provide a text equivalent with the NOSCRIPT element, or use a server-side script instead of a client-side script, or provide an alternative accessible page as per checkpoint 11.4. Refer also to guideline 1.
I'd also look at what it is about the menu that makes it inaccessible. There are many different ways to skin a cat when using JavaScript. And, don't be afraid to use it as it can actually aid in accessibility as stated in the guidelines for its use.
Frankly, if the decision were mine, I'd tell them that their fix isn't sufficient, and that they have to do it in the more mainstream or standard way. I have, however, absolutely zero authority on this one. All I'm empowered to do is tell them whether or not their site is compliant, and suggest ways to fix it where it's not. I've done that, and the agency in question did their own fix instead. So now I'm trying to figure out whether it's compliant - legally, functionally, technically.
I'm sure their logic was that having the visitor's browser go to another page to get the text links is not substantively different for the visitor, from having the browser go to a bookmark. Both require navigation and a screen change, and both require clicking on a link to continue the visit, whether to the Home Page or another one.
They did modify each page in the site with a link to the text links at the top, so that's good anyway. While they were at it, it would have been better if they'd gone ahead and added the cluster of text links at the bottom of each page...but they didn't.
But it doesn't appear to address whether those redundant text links must appear on each page or would be acceptible on a page of their own.
There are only suggestions available from the authoritative resources on this subject. There is no legal or illegal. It is either accessible or it is not.
What they appear to have done is added an extra step in the process for the user. If that is the case, this would not be the right way. From where I'm sitting, those links need to be on every page with a skip navigation link. They can be inserted into a standard include to make it easier to maintain.
