W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2017

Re: Heading structure with 1.3.1 Info and Relationships and 2.4.1 Bypass Block

From: McSorley, Jan <jan.mcsorley@pearson.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 11:18:44 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFuJ5sOFF1atxikDjemDoqGoYoqAge-OhRM43ex5Wwp+7XFG-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
With all due respect, I don't agree that skipping headings is "an equal
usability issue for everyone." I believe that it is much more
time-consuming, and potentially confusing, for a person without sight to
determine what is happening with heading structures that skip heading
levels than it is for a person with sight.

I believe that heading structure for people who rely on the use of screen
reading technology means something more than people who are able to see
visual headings.  People who can see the headings, don't rely on them for
navigation in the same way people without sight do.  I think that it is
unfortunate that consensus could not be met to use best practice with
heading structure.  It is certainly a fairness issue in assessment and I
believe that it has a much bigger impact on usability than people think it

Jan McSorley
VP, Accessibility
Psychometrics and Testing Services

400 Center Ridge Drive, Suite E
Austin, TX  78753
M - (512) 673-9569
Twitter: @Jan_McSorley
Skype:  jan.mcsorley

Learn more at pearson.com

[image: Pearson]

*We put a man on the moon in the 1960's ... surely we can make information
technology fully accessible to people with disabilities.  It can be done
... it must be done ... it will be done!*

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> *1.3.1*
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#content-structure-separation-programmatic>*Info
> and Relationships:* Information, *structure*
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#structuredef>,
> and *relationships*
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#relationshipsdef>conveyed
> through *presentation*
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#presentationdef>can
> be *programmatically determined*
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#programmaticallydetermineddef>
> or are available in text. (Level A)
> 1. I do not believe skipping a heading level is an issue for assistive
> software users any more than it is for a non-assistive software user.  In
> other words, it is an equal usability issue for everyone, but not a 1.3.1
> success failure.
> 2. I agree that headings (H1-H6) should be used structurally as the HTML
> markup language semantics intended them to be used, but 1.3.1 does not
> require the use of headings, does not required that headings be used all
> the time in all content, nor that when heading are used that they be used
> sequentially, nor that there only be one and only one heading level 1 per
> page.
> 3. 1.3.1 doesn't require that presentation include structure, but that if
> and when it does present structure and relationships through presentation,
> that the same information is available through mark-up (or available in
> text).
> If we want to "add" a new success criteria that requires that if and when
> heading levels are used, that they be used sequentially, but we have to
> allow for many situations that are consistent with the intent of the HTML
> specification.  For example:
> a. Page that is quoting a part of a page that doesn't include a heading
> level 1 should be allowed.  In other words starting with a heading level 2
> or 3.
> b. Heading level 2 can follow a heading 3 or 4 if it is going back up a
> level.  For example:
>         H1
>                 H2
>                         H3
>                 H2
>                         H3
>                                 H4
>                 H2
> c.  Page that doesn't include any heading level 3's, but uses a consistent
> heading level 4 for all footers across a set of pages should be allowed.
> In other words, it is OK to skip a heading level on a page in some
> situations.
> So, with these examples we can begin to see why the working group could
> NOT reach consensus to ALWAYS require the use of headings, ALWAYS starting
> heading level 1 and NEVER skipping a heading level.
> ___________
> Regards,
> Phill Jenkins
> pjenkins@us.ibm.com
> Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
> IBM Research Accessibility
> ibm.com/able <http://www.ibm.com/able>
> facebook.com/IBMAccessibility <http://www.facebook.com/IBMAccessibility>
> twitter.com/IBMAccess
> ageandability.com
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2017 17:19:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 3 January 2017 17:19:55 UTC