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: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 09:57:49 -0600
Message-ID: <CAH2ngEQ=kn0NXLYAr0Nr8QoBGq1A6-tC+=_AaxWmdc=AaSz9yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Userite <richard@userite.com>
Cc: "McSorley, Jan" <jan.mcsorley@pearson.com>, WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

While I too, prefer that headings levels not be skipped, I'm also aware of
what WCAG 2.0 requirements are.

The main reason that helped me understand that I cannot call a failure
under WCAG 2.0 A or AA for a skipped heading it this:

Feasibility/Reasonableness for large organizations using content management
systems, where reusable chunks of content that have headings included in
them, and there is no way to give that reusable chunk a heading level that
works in all the places that chunk needs to be used.

I too would love to see a new SC for "do not skip headings" (maybe in 2.1
or Silver).  And, please know that at Deque we proactively teach and preach
to not skip headings.  But when it comes to WCAG 2.0 A and AA
compliance...I can't rewrite or over interpret the requirements.


glenda sims    |   team a11y lead   |    deque.com    |    512.963.3773

*web for everyone. web on everything.* -  w3 goals

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Userite <richard@userite.com> wrote:

> Hi Glenda
> When I use a screen-reader (Jaws) I get very frustrated if headings do not
> follow a logical tree structure.
> 1.3.1 specifically states that the presentation structure should be
> *PROGRAMATICALLY DETERMINED*.  Programmes such as Jaws do not have “common
> sense” or care about “usability”. They rely on a proper tree structure to
> tell me how a page is structured. If you, as an author, skip a heading
> level Jaws cannot tell if this is deliberate or carelessness.
> When discussing Success Criterea please always bear in mind the
> fundamental purpose of the criterea.
> Sorry
> Richard
> www.userite.com
> *From:* Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 03, 2017 5:40 PM
> *To:* McSorley, Jan <jan.mcsorley@pearson.com>
> *Cc:* WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Heading structure with 1.3.1 Info and Relationships and
> 2.4.1 Bypass Block
> Jan, Phill, et al
> I agree with Phill, in that skipping heading levels does not fail 1.3.1.
> I think it would be a wonderful addition to WCAG 2.1 or Silver.
> WCAG 2.0 is a minimum bar...it is not all best practices.  There were
> reasons that skipped heading levels were not included in WCAG 2.0 SC 1.3.1.
> G
> glenda sims    |   team a11y lead   |    deque.com    |    512.963.3773
> <(512)%20963-3773>
> *web for everyone. web on everything.* -  w3 goals
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:18 AM, McSorley, Jan <jan.mcsorley@pearson.com>
> wrote:
>> 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
>> does.
>> 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
>> www.linkedin.com/in/janmcsorley
>> 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 Wednesday, 4 January 2017 15:58:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 4 January 2017 15:58:35 UTC