October 2024

November 2024

Sight Concern Bedfordshire

Screen reader users will see links on a page listed without context, 
so you should ensure the same link text is not used to point to different web
addresses.

For example:

```html
<p>
    Learn the latest about our products: 
    <a href="/products/news">News</a>
</p>

<p>
    Learn the latest about our services: 
    <a href="/company/news">News</a>
</p>
``` 

To a screen reader who is listing links, they will only hear:

* News
* News

These links appear to be the same, but they both behave differently. 
One solution, which doesn't require the page design to change, is to add an 
`aria-label` for each link:

```html
<p>
    Learn the latest about our products: 
    <a href="/products/news" aria-label="Product news">News</a>
</p>

<p>
    Learn the latest about our services: 
    <a href="/company/news" aria-label="Company news">News</a>
</p>
``` 

Which will be heard as:

* Product news
* Company news

To pass this checkpoint, make sure that links which point to different pages 
have distinct text inside them, or that they specify ARIA labels (`aria-labelledby` or
`aria-label`), or they use hidden text only visible to screen readers
(e.g. `<span class="sr-only">...</span>`) to distinguish them from each 
other.

If links point to the same page (e.g., they redirect or use tracking
parameters, but are functionally equivalent to the user) you can ignore
this issue.

a-duplicate-link-text-for-different-destinations

Two adjacent links should not point to the same destination. You almost always want to combine the 
two links.

For example, it is quite common to link an image and text together like this:

```html
<a href="news.html">
    <img src="photo.jpg" alt="" />
</a>
<a href="news.html">
    News
</a>
``` 

These adjacent links should be combined like so:

```html
<a href="news.html">
    <img src="photo.jpg" alt="" />
    News
</a>
``` 

Links to `#` are ignored, as these are nearly always placeholders for JavaScript, e.g.:

```html
<a href="#" onclick="approve()">
    OK
</a>
<a href="#" onclick="reject()">
    Cancel
</a>
```

# Justification

Many users of assistive technology are only able to experience content sequentially - that is, they must
step through each part of the page, one part at a time. Often this is a slow process, potentially 
hampered by a physical impediment.

Stepping through redundant links is time consuming; for example users of a screen reader must 
hear each link read aloud in turn. 

This also simplifies your code. 

# Methodology

1. Find all links (`<a>` tags) on the page.
2. Ignore links pointing to `#`, as these are usually placeholders for JavaScript.
3. Flag links which are (a) separated only by whitespace and (b) which point to the 
   same absolute URL.  

# Learn more

Read about [Technique H2](https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H2) on how to combine
an adjacent image and texts links.

duplicate-adjacent-link

All controls on the page - including links, buttons, and fields - should clearly 
indicate when they have been selected by the keyboard.

This is a stricter version of [WCAG 2.4.7](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/focus-visible.html),
which requires that the focus indicator is visible, but doesn't specify how clearly
it should be visible.

You can confirm this yourself by loading a webpage and using the Tab key to navigate 
through it. Anything you can select should clearly alter its appearance when selected. 
For example, a text field might change color, or have a distinctive border applied. 

## The requirements

The [official requirements](https://w3c.github.io/wcag/understanding/focus-appearance.html) are 
complicated. A simplified version is:

* Surround the control with a solid outline
* The outline must have at least 3:1 contrast with its background
* The outline must have at least 3:1 contrast with its surroundings, or be at least 2px thick

The actual requirements allow for more variation, but generally require that you 
calculate the perimeter and/or area of the focus area, which can be very difficult.

## How to fix

Links and form controls should use a focus selector which contrasts with their
unfocused state, as well as any surroundings of the focus state. 

In practice, the easiest way to accomplish this is to use a two-color focus, like so:

```css
/* ensure high-contrast mode still has an indicator */
outline: 2px transparent solid;

/* Apply a thick yellow box-shadow with 
   a thin dark blue indicator in the middle */
box-shadow: 0 0 0 2px #F9F9D1, 0 0 0 4px #396196, 0 0 4px 8px #F9F9D1;
``` 

From [Technique C40](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Techniques/css/C40).

Using two contrasting colors guarantees that the focus state will be visible, 
regardless of the background or surrounding colors.

## Troubleshooting

### Elements appear to change in the browser

Focus states should be defined in CSS alone, and not require JavaScript to work. 

Try disabling JavaScript on the page, and see if focus is still visible. If it not, 
then the focus state won't work with assistive technologies that don't have a physical
keyboard, e.g. mobile phones.

Some more unusual means of implementing a focus state cannot be detected or measured
automatically. These include:

* Focus implemented via pseudo-elements - such as `::after` or `::before`. 
* Focus using `:focus-within` (JavaScript current provides no way to access these).
* Focus cascaded to child elements, e.g. a `<span>` inside an `<a>` tag. We detect
  some of these cases, but there are variations that we cannot detect.

Currently, there is no practical way to assess these focus states automatically.

### Elements over images not analyzed

Silktide cannot assess the contrast of elements that are over images. This is because
the contrast of an element is calculated by comparing the color of the element with the
color of the background. 

If the element is over an image, the background color is the
color of the image, which varies from pixel-to-pixel, and may vary further as the page
is resized, due to responsive design.

### Unexpected elements are focusable

You may be surprised to see tags like `<div>` or `<span>` being shown as focusable.
If an element has a `tabindex` of 0 or higher, it becomes focusable. Any HTML tag can be made 
focusable in this way, this is so that custom controls (e.g. your own drop-down menus, or 
sliders) can support keyboard navigation. [Learn more about tabindex on MDN](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Global_attributes/tabindex).

## Further reading

This is part of the draft WCAG 2.2 specification and is subject to change.

* [WCAG 2.4.11](https://w3c.github.io/wcag/understanding/focus-appearance.html)

ensure-focus-appearance

Most content should be written so people with a lower secondary level of education can understand it.
Where this is not possible, supplemental content or an alternative version should be provided.

This check highlights pages with a reading age of 16 years or higher. Only pages with at least 100 words
of content (excluding navigation, footers, etc) are considered.  

For more information, see [WCAG SC 3.1.5](https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/meaning-supplements.html).

ensure-reading-ability-is-not-advanced

All interactive components on a page, such as buttons or fields, should ideally be large enough 
to be easily used by people with motor impairments. 

This ensures people with motor impairments can easily click or tap on the element.

The recommended size is 44 x 44 CSS pixels, with some exceptions:

* **Equivalent available** - the functionality provided by
  the control is available elsewhere, and large enough, on the same page.
* **Inline text** - the control appears inside a sentence or block of text. 
* **User Agent control** - the size of the target is determined by the user agent 
  and is not modified by the author. Generally this is not the case for web content.
* **Essential** - the size of the target is essential to the information being conveyed,
  e.g. a tutorial demonstrating what a small button looks like. This exception is rare.

## Applying this check

Nearly all websites will fail this check by default. The minimum size requirement
is larger than most links and controls on most websites.

This is the much stricter version of the WCAG 2.2 AA check for target size. Most websites
should focus on the AA check before considering this AAA check:

* [Target Size (Minimum)](https://w3c.github.io/wcag/understanding/target-size-minimum.html)

## Methodology

This check is run on both the mobile and desktop versions of every page. Results
for each may differ.

1. All interactive elements are identified, including buttons, links, and form controls. 
2. If an element is preceded or followed directly by a non-empty text node, the control
   is ignored.
3. If an element is not normally visible, it is ignored. This includes elements which 
   are positioned offscreen or cropped (e.g. for 'screen-reader only' text).
4. If an element is a link, and another visible link on the page points to the same URL, with 
   that other link meeting the size requirements, the element is ignored.
5. Otherwise, the element must have a minimum size of 44 x 44 CSS pixels.

## Troubleshooting

Silktide only records the first 100 instances of a failure on a page. Because failures
of this check are common, it is possible that your page has more than 100 failures, but
only the first 100 will be shown.

## Further reading

* [Target Size (Enhanced)](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/target-size-enhanced)

ensure-reasonable-target-size

The purpose of a link should be clear from the text inside the link. Links like "learn more" are
not helpful to users with accessible technology.

Links should also avoid redundantly saying that they are links, e.g. "link to page" as screen
readers will read these out with the word "link" added, e.g. "link link to page".

Exceptions to these rules are allowed where the purpose of a link would be ambiguous to users 
in general.

link-purpose-a

wcag-22.score

wcag-22-a.score

wcag-22-aa.score

wcag-22-aaa.score

website.pages

website.documents

Lists of related items should be written [semantically](https://html.com/semantic-markup/) as a 
list.

Usually this means rewriting these to use the `<ul>` or `<ol>` tags.

This allows assistive technologies to more easily navigate from item to
item, or past entire groups of links if the user wants to. 

## Examples 

### Navigation

This navigation:

```html
<a href="/about">About us</a>
<a href="/products">Products</a>
<a href="/contact">Contact us</a>
```

Should be rewritten as a list:

```html
<ul>
  <li><a href="/about">About us</a></li>
  <li><a href="/products">Products</a></li>
  <li><a href="/contact">Contact us</a></li>
</ul>
```

### Tables for content

This single-column table is redundant. There is no
value in placing the content in a table, which makes
it harder for screen reader users to interpret and interact
with.

```html
<table>
  <tr>
    <td>
      Banana
    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>
      Apple
    </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>
      Pear
    </td>
  </tr>
</table>
```

Should be rewritten as a list:

```html
<ul>
  <li>Banana</li>
  <li>Apple</li>
  <li>Pear</li>
</ul>
```

## Justification

Users of assistive technologies, like screen readers, can skip an entire
list in one step. In some cases, they can even search inside a list. 

These aids are not available where links are written outside a list. 
Failing to use lists correctly can force users to have to step through
hundreds of items one at a time.

## Methodology

1. Any single-column tables are automatically considered 
   redundant lists. 
2. For non-table elements, recursively work down the page looking inside
   each element for links separated by minimal amounts of non-link text. 
   If the non-link text is below 30 characters 
   in length, we assume we're inside content that should be a list.
   Some exceptions are made, e.g. the presence of an `<hr>` would break
   out of the list.

## More information

See [Technique
H48](https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/H48) for
details.

mark-navigation-section-as-list

When viewed on small screens (like mobile phones) content must fit without 
requiring scrolling in two dimensions.

WCAG 2.1 specifically requires this for:

+ Vertical scrolling content at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels
+ Horizontal scrolling content at a height equivalent to 256 CSS pixels

Except for parts of the content which require two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning,
such as a maps application.

Priority	Recommendation	Progress
	Ensure controls clearly indicate when they are selected WCAG 2.2 AA 2.4.11	33.8%
	Ensure pages don't scroll in two dimensions on small screens WCAG 2.1 AA 1.4.10	39.5%
	Write lists or groups of links semantically WCAG 2.0 A 1.3.1	0%
	Ensure content is not too difficult to understand WCAG 2.0 AAA 3.1.5	76%
	Ensure links explain their purpose WCAG 2.0 A 2.4.4	94.6%

Sight Concern Bedfordshire

Accessibility

WCAG Levels

Recommendations

The best free accessibility checker