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: Fri, 18 May 2012 16:47:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJi9CqrR-L0uiyd0978zaJPmJB1NCCE9mWTqCegFeF=x+A8iqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Userite <richard@userite.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hello Richard,
The WG is quite explicit when  they  want one to use a technique in
combination with another technique or to use different techniques in
different situations. See SC 1.1.1 or SC 1.3.1 or SC 3.3.2.
SC 3.3.2, one cannot use H90 independently but it can be used with
G131 in order to be sufficient.
Yet H44 can be used independently to meet SC 3.3.2.

For SC 2.4.1 they list 2 groups:
1. Creating links to skip blocks of repeated material using one of the
following techniques:
which lists 4 techniques
2. Grouping blocks of repeated material in a way that can be skipped,
using one of the following techniques:
which lists 6 techniques
These groups are independent and so are the techniques in each group.
No combination is indicated.
For instance, if one does G1 (of first group) then it is sufficient to
meet SC 2.4.1 and does not have to be combined with any other
technique from any other group.
So the interpretation in this case is that all 10 techniques above are
independent and sufficient to meet SC 2.4.1.

I also know "techniques are informative" and not  'normative'.

On 5/18/12, Userite <richard@userite.com> wrote:
> Dear Sailesh,
> H69 is a technology specific technique (X/HTML) which should be used in
> conjunction with one or more of the general techniques ( G1, G123 and/or
> G124) . Technology specific techniques do not replace general techniques -
> "Technology-specific techniques do not supplant the general techniques:
> content developers should consider both general techniques and
> technology-specific techniques as they work toward conformance."
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/intro.html)
> I know the section title says "Sufficient Techniques" but it does not mean
> pick any single one to meet the guideline. In practice I have needed to use
> all three general techniques plus H69 on some complex pages.
> I am sorry but there is no "quick fix" - we have to use our knowledge and
> skill <G>
> Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sailesh Panchang
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 3:36 PM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Using Heading to Replace Skip Links
> Richard,
> H69 is listed as a sufficient technique i.e. the connotation is that
> it can be used  by itself to meet SC 2.4.1. I believe this is
> incorrect.
> Sailesh
> On 5/17/12, Userite <richard@userite.com> wrote:
>> If I may but in here...
>> There is nothing that says that any single technique should enable you to
>> completely meet a particular success criteria. For any particular problem
>> you need to select one or more techniques that together meet your need.
>> This
>> approach gives the designer the flexibility to meet the widest possible
>> range of situations.
>> So for skipping repeated elements such as navigation lists the technique
>> of
>> correct semantic code (headings) helps blind users whilst the "skip to
>> content" technique helps sighted keyboard users. One does not replace the
>> other. The semantic technique works for blind users because we typically
>> list the headings as soon as the page opens. we only list the links if
>> the
>> content, as described by the headings, does not interest us. Sighted
>> keyboard users can see the headings but cannot get to them directly
>> because
>> most browsers do not have the function to list headings so they have to
>> tab
>> through the navigation links to get to any links in the content, unless
>> you
>> provide the skip function. If you want to be able to use semantic code
>> for
>> page navigation by everybody (including sighted users) then you need to
>> talk
>> to all the web-browser manufacturers and persuade them ALL to add the
>> facility and the necessary extra buttons to their current and legacy
>> browsers - Good luck!
>> Don't forget that the use of the semantic technique does more than just
>> help
>> a user to get to the content, it also gives us an overview of the page
>> and
>> gives us the option to go to just a particular sections. It also helps
>> programmes such as search robots and data analysis to catalogue page
>> content
>> more accurately. Skipping repetitive content, sample code, ascii art etc.
>> saves effort for the sighted keyboard user but does not add value to the
>> content, so the two techniques have different purposes and cannot be
>> combined (even though they can, in the context of skipping navigation
>> bars,
>> perform similar functions).
>> In the meantime please use the *selection* of relevant techniques that
>> are
>> required to enable all users to have a positive and constructive
>> experience
>> when visiting your sites.
>> Kind Regards
>> Richard
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sailesh Panchang
>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:53 PM
>> To: Devarshi Pant
>> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Using Heading to Replace Skip Links
>> 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 Friday, 18 May 2012 20:47:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:44 UTC