W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Using Heading to Replace Skip Links

From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:53:54 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJi9CqrvKbV8H5gbpKG=okHnsnWOv5rY9R0fvEDF_ek6W=JraA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Devarshi Pant <devarshipant@gmail.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Devarshi,
Someone from WCAG-WG should weigh in ... I too had made the same
argument to them before.
I also highlight out that there are techniques that point to multiple
SC. So a technique that addresses multiple accessibility problems can
be coherently combined into one and should be done for headings.
Well breadcrumb or left nav  is  a 'section' of a page that is
visually identified as a section even though they contain UI elements
mostly. Non-sighted users too should be able to perceive them in like
manner and navigate to them if needed. Aria-landmarks help now. But
some prefer to use off-screen headings to provide this functionality
instead.
Sailesh


On 5/16/12, Devarshi Pant <devarshipant@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sailesh,
> You make a valid point in your post. I think there should be greater
> consensus on whether H69 is sufficient or not for SC 2.4.1, which
> seemed to be the intent of the original post by Vivienne - correct me
> otherwise. Also note that the definition of section (from
> understanding SC 2.4.10 – Key Terms) reads: “A self-contained portion
> of written content that deals with one or more related topics or
> thoughts. Note: A section may consist of one or more paragraphs and
> include graphics, tables, lists and sub-sections.”
> Correct me, but this definition seems to imply that a section is part
> of the written content besides other things. If one is to replace
> ‘headings’ with ‘structure’ and ‘content’ with ‘sections,’ H42
> becomes, “…HTML and XHTML heading markup to provide semantic code for
> headings (implying *structure*) in the content (implying *from which
> Sections are derived*). Isn’t this H69 written differently? On a
> related note, G141 and H69 may talk about the same thing but then
> refer to different success criteria. Shouldn’t there be a single
> technique on headings which points to multiple success criteria?
> To help understand, I took a line from each of the techniques below:
> **H42: The objective of this technique is to use HTML and XHTML
> heading markup to provide semantic code for headings in the content.
> (SC 1.3.1)
> **H69: The objective of this technique is to use section headings to
> convey the structure of the content. (SC 2.4.1)
> **G141: The objective of this technique is to ensure that sections
> have headings that identify them. (SC 1.3.1; 2.4.10)
>
> -Devarshi
>
>>>Sailesh wrote:
> H69 is authored with reference to SC 2.4.1 and not SC 2.4.10. That's
> why I maintain that  being able to skip to an h1 or h2 that hopefully
> is the main content is a byproduct of user agent's feature that lets
> one skip headings to comprehend page structure etc. Then it does not
> deserve to be a separate technique but maybe merged with H42.
> Yes as you note, some pages do not have headings at start of some
> content sections. Typically left nav or breadcrumb nav and sometimes
> even main content, though there might be other headings on the page.
> One may insert invisible headings to aid screen reader navigation ...
> this is exploiting the screen reader's heading navigation feature.
> This will not work for sighted keyboard users. Adding visible
> headings where none exist will help the page comply with SC 2.4.10
> (AAA) and might provide an alternative way to skip to
> main content SC 2.4.1).
>
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 16:54:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 May 2012 16:54:25 GMT