Re: HTML Headings technique: duplicated

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Loretta et al,
> Sorry I disagree.
> Headings are not marked up merely to aid navigation by screen readers. Using hidden headings to work like ARIA landmarks is essentially a hack that exploits ability of screen reading software to jump from heading to heading.
> Technique #69  supports both the SCs including 1.3.1 and the description explains that headings are used to convey structure and hierarchy and semantics. So I am not sure what  is the value of H42.
> In fact read the description for H42. Except for the "objective is..." sentence, the rest  could be better used to  within a "Common Failure".
> Sailesh
>
================================
Response from the Working Group
================================
Thank you for identifying the further clarity needed regarding the
differences in techniques H42 and H69.

Technique H42 is a sufficient technique for SC 1.3.1 but not SC 2.4.1
because H42 only addresses marking up headings that already exist in
the page.

SC 2.4.1 requires adding headings where they may not have been part of
the original page in order to use heading markup as a mechanism to
bypass blocks of content. This potentially makes technique H42
insufficient for meeting SC 2.4.1. Technique H69 addresses the
potential requirement of adding extra headings.

In order to clarify the difference we will reword the description
section in H42. In particular, H42 is not necessarily used to "convey
the structure of the content" (because this may or may not be true)
but is instead used to "provide semantic code for headings in the
content". We will also add information about the benefits that heading
markup can provide and remove the confusing failure-related
information.

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact


On behalf of the WCAG Working Group

Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 23:10:11 UTC