W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Headings at Each Section of Content to Meet SC 2.4.1? ( LC-2909)

From: <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 16:36:17 +0000
Message-Id: <E1XEhij-0008Ri-6A@jessica.w3.org>
To: Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
 Dear Makoto Ueki ,

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has reviewed the
comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the
Understanding WCAG 2.0 published on 6 Mar 2014. Thank you for having taken
the time to review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
public-comments-wcag20@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 12 August
2014. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a
consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a
formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the
transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation
Track.

Thanks,

For the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group,
Michael Cooper
W3C Staff Contact

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/E1WMT4G-0003NM-Rr@shauna.w3.org
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20140306/


=====

Your comment on Bypass Blocks: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.1:
> I understand that H69 is one of the sufficient techniques to meet SC
> 2.4.1 and using H69 is not requred to meet SC 2.4.1.
> 
> However the sufficient technique for SC 2.4.1 should be like "Providing
> heading elements at the beginning of main content and repeated sections
> on multiple web pages." SC 2.4.1 only requires a mechanism "to bypass
> blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web pages."
> 
> Do we need a heading for a section which is not repeated on multiple web
> pages in order to meet SC 2.4.1?
> 
> H69 looks like a sufficient technique for SC 2.4.10 and requires authors
> to do more than the requirements of SC 2.4.1. And it could lead them to
> misunderstanding that each section on a page has to have a
> heading(h1-h6) in order to meet SC 2.4.1.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Move H69 to SC 2.4.10 and modify H69 to clarify the requirement of SC
> 2.4.1 and add it as a new sufficient technique to SC 2.4.1.


Working Group Resolution (LC-2909):
Thank you for your comment.  The working group agrees that H69 can be
sufficient for 2.4.10 as well as 2.4.1, and has adjusted the technique and
the test procedure to clarify the test for each success criterion.  Related
to your question, it is not necessary to have headings at the start of
every section on a page to meet 2.4.1, but even if a page provides more
headings than are needed it is still sufficient for 2.4.1.  A given page
could address 2.4.1 with fewer headings, or through a different method
entirely, but  that would represent a different technique than this one.

----
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 16:36:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 14 July 2018 08:23:16 UTC