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

Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements

From: Srinivasu Chakravarthula <lists@srinivasu.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 11:49:05 +0530
Message-ID: <CAFHrfbzVpES3C6oz9nL8BxyWx6VfUs0KN-7e6DU5Fw-rKiQxrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: Rakesh Paladugula <prakesh369@gmail.com>, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <ram.eict2013@gmail.com>, WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Katie,
With due respect, I believe WCAG do require authors to structure (1.3.1)
pages correctly. When we talk about structuring, wouldn't it require
headings to be nested correctly? I have reported them as violations as well
have seen many others doing it. I don't consider <h2> followed by <h5>
would be a best way to do.

If not WCAG, perhaps HTML spec may require authors to use at least one <h1>
on the page.

Thanks,
Vasu

Regards,

Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://twitter.com/CSrinivasu/
Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://serveominclusion.com

Let's create an inclusive web!

Lead Accessibility Consultant, Informatica


On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:00 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Phill Jenkins is correct concerning the headings. WCAG 2.0 does not
> specifically require headings be nested.
>
> And yes, this is the right place to post this kind of question on WCAG
> conformance ....:-)
>
> ** katie **
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect *
>
> *WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS
> = **CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>
>
> *Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* *ryladog@gmail.com
> <ryladog@gmail.com>* *| **Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*
>
> People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
> but people will never forget how you made them feel.......
>
> Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
> dictate where we are going.
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Rakesh Paladugula <prakesh369@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> My thoughts are :
>>
>> 1. Main heading can be a level 2. No harm in it. Having h5 after h2 is a
>> violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships.
>> 2. I consider having improper text for labels as violation as per 2.4.6
>> headings and labels. In your second container the label is Apple but the
>> text is of banana.
>> 3. I don’t think it is a violation.
>>
>> Thanks & Regards
>> Rakesh
>>
>> 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 Friday, 2 March 2018 06:19:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 2 March 2018 06:19:59 UTC