W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Checking WCAG 2.0 for Structure

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 11:32:16 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTinJn=3qfFo8zHbscu_ytfVWeRHt+eOkhxqsB8i1Y_wjBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Cc: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Vivienne,

SC 1.3.1 requires that headings be marked up so that they can be recognized
programmatically. If an author designs a page with headings that are not
organized hierarchically, then as long as they are marked up as headings,
they still meet SC 1.3.1.

We recognize that hierarchical headings can be very helpful to people, and
we consider them best practice. G141 is an advisory technique for SC 1.3.1,
that is, it is advice for going beyond the requirements of the success
criterion to improve the accessibility of the page.

H42 contains an example with non-hierarchical headings to make it clear
that, although they are recommended, hierarchical headings are *not*
required to meet SC 1.3.1.

G141 is a sufficient technique for SC 2.4.10, which addresses using headings
to organize the sections of a web page. However, this is a AAA success
criterion.

Does this help?

Loretta

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>wrote:

>  Hi all****
>
> ** **
>
> I have recently been doing a comparison of automated tools on a single
> website home page to compare results.  There is a huge difference between
> the results, one of which is the analysis of the heading structure and
> whether this results in a violation.  The webpage I’m looking at is my
> university’s home page: http://www.ecu.edu.au/****
>
> ** **
>
> The people at SortSite have looked at my question and given me their
> permission to seek opinions.  They state:****
>
> ** **
>
> “In the heading issue, it does look like there's an inconsistency in the
> WCAG techniques:****
>
> ** **
>
> G141: To facilitate navigation and understanding of overall document
> structure, authors should use headings that are properly nested (e.g., h1
> followed by h2, h2 followed by h2 or h3, h3 followed by h3 or h4, etc.).**
> **
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G141****
>
> ** **
>
> H42: Example 2 apparently contradicts this by showing an H2 before an H1
> and saying that headings should be used out of order (H42 is even linked to
> from G141) http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H42.html****
>
> ** **
>
> Ultimately, the arbiter of this issue is what actually works for screen
> reader users. From the looks of key commands in JAWS, it looks like it
> doesn't matter if heading levels are used in rigid heirarchy as long as
> stuff of the same importance all at the same heading level:****
>
>
> http://www.freedomscientific.com/doccenter/archives/training/JAWSKeystrokes.htm“
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> The website in question is using a 3-column layout and about half of the
> tools find a heading level violation and half do not.  I would be really
> interested in hearing any opinions as to whether this heading structure is
> appropriate or violates WCAG 2.0.****
>
> ** **
>
> Regards****
>
> Vivienne Conway****
>
> ------------------------------
> This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must
> not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received
> it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any
> record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the
> opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no
> liability for the accuracy of the information provided.
>
> CRICOS IPC 00279B
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2011 18:32:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 15 June 2011 18:32:48 GMT