W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2018

Re: Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships. - was: WCAG violations or accessibility enhancements

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 12:30:26 -0600
To: Rakesh Paladugula <prakesh369@gmail.com>
Cc: Ramakrishnan Subramanian <ram.eict2013@gmail.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF3C926E48.177BCBEB-ON86258243.0061CD4A-86258243.0065AB9B@notes.na.collabserv.com>
Why is 
        Having h5 after h2 
a violation of 1.3.1?
        1.3.1 Info and Relationships: Information, structure, and 
relationships conveyed through presentationcan be programmatically 
determined or are available in text. (Level A) 

1.3.1 doesn't require perfect nesting order - just that it can be 
programmatically determined.

There are plently of examples of news type pages that may have a bold 
looking headline heading tagged as an <h2> followed in the reading order 
by a very small heading, such as  "Other Author Articles" tagged as an H5. 
 
What would be wrong with that per the Success Criteria?

The Understanding 1.3.3 says: "The intent of this Success Criterion is to 
ensure that information and relationships that are implied by visual or 
auditory formatting are preserved when the presentation format changes. 
For example, the presentation format changes when the content is read by a 
screen reader . . . Sighted users perceive structure and relationships 
through various visual cues ? headings are often in a larger, bold font 
separated from paragraphs by blank lines; . . 
under Additional Techniques (Advisory) for 1.3.1
G141: Organizing a page using headings 
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G141 which says: "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.). 
Tests
Procedure
2.      Check that a heading for each section exists.
Expected Results
Check #2 is true.

Note that 
a.) G141 is an advisory techniue, 
b.) G141 does not say "shall" or "must", 
c.) G141 does not fail if the heading are not nested,
d.) G141 passes if each section has a heading, 
e.) advisory techniques are best practices, not examples of failures to 
meet a Success Criteria,
f.) Common Failures for SC 1.3.1 does not list an example with incorrectly 
nested headings . 

On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian 
<ram.eict2013@gmail.com> wrote:

Heading order:
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins




On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian 
<ram.eict2013@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Heading order:
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>

Landmark regions:
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=?region? aria-label=?apple?>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=?region? aria-label=?apple?>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
3. Links which open in a new window:
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?


-- 

Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2018 18:30:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 1 March 2018 18:31:00 UTC