Skip to content

Conversation

@michaelwood
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

@codemacabre codemacabre left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, although there are a few links with a title attribute which seem superfluous. According to WCAG, links should only contain title attributes to provide supplementary information. Duplication of text in the link text means anyone using a screen reader will hear the text twice, which isn't good practice.

I recommend reviewing the title texts and deciding whether they're providing any useful supplementary information.

@michaelwood
Copy link
Member Author

Looks good, although there are a few links with a title attribute which seem superfluous. According to WCAG, links should only contain title attributes to provide supplementary information. Duplication of text in the link text means anyone using a screen reader will hear the text twice, which isn't good practice.

I recommend reviewing the title texts and deciding whether they're providing any useful supplementary information.

Thanks, my rationale was that product names aren't descriptive so my hope was to add accessibility to those links.

gnu.org drops requests occasionally which is possibly due to them coming
from github's infrastructure. Skip testing the license link.
@michaelwood michaelwood requested a review from codemacabre March 4, 2025 11:19
codemacabre
codemacabre previously approved these changes Mar 4, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@mariongalley mariongalley left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Added 3 comments on specific files - hopefully this process makes them discoverable

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We're not intending to publicly share the link to the unstyled Registry 'classic'. The options are to either refer to the Registry without providing a link (it's now an internal tool), which is the approach we've taken in the Publisher Guidance, or provide the link to the Quality Dashboard where signposting to a link of all publishers. I think in this case we should do the former.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@michaelwood michaelwood force-pushed the mw/update_links_new_website branch 2 times, most recently from 855a285 to 94ddd0c Compare March 4, 2025 14:11
@michaelwood michaelwood force-pushed the mw/update_links_new_website branch from 94ddd0c to 9c07cc4 Compare March 4, 2025 14:43
@michaelwood michaelwood merged commit 9c3c805 into live Mar 4, 2025
4 of 6 checks passed
@michaelwood michaelwood deleted the mw/update_links_new_website branch March 4, 2025 16:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants