W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > December 2011

Re: HTML Headings technique: duplicated: H42 and H69

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 15:27:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHu5OWbUZfytr=2rueBSFO3CynZNbDS-hXQEuqOQVx8eFTS7Ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>wrote:

> The WCAG-WG,
> See old exchange on this topic below.
> Now I refer to Techniques working draft (latest) of Oct 2010.
> See http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/html.html
> H42 refers to proper use of headings for SC 1.3.1 and H69 for use of
> headings to skip blocks (SC 2.4.1).
> But part of the description under H69 which was correctly placed under h42
> is now moved to h69... and is completely out of place.
> Refer to:
> "In some technologies, headings are designed to convey logical hierarchy.
> Skipping levels in the sequence of headings may create the impression that
> the structure of the document has not been properly thought through or that
> specific headings have been chosen for their visual rendering rather than
> their meaning. Authors are encouraged to nest headings hierarchically. When
> headings are nested hierarchically, the most important information is given
> the highest logical level, and subsections are given subsequent logical
> levels.(i.e., h2 is a subsection of h1). ..."
> Again this Web page is about HTML techniques so why does this  description
> start with "In some technologies"? Does it apply to HTML / XHTML or not?
> And the note for example #2 of H42  refers to skipping blocks of content.
> Refer to:
> "Note: It is important to note that the example code below is intended to
> show how headings can be used to bypass blocks of information. It is not
> intended to prescribe what level of heading should be used for a particular
> section of the web page."
> So why is this note and example under H42?
> Completely out of place again.
>
> The technique is one and the same: proper use of headings. And it serves
> two purposes and SCs. So merge the techniques into one instead of  running
> around in circles. I had suggested this in 2009.
> There are several techniques that refer to  multiple SC. So I fail to
> understand your resistance for this one.
>
> Sailesh Panchang
> Web Accessibility Specialist
> www.deque.com
>
> --- On Mon, 12/1/08, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
> wrote:
>
> From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
> Subject: Re: HTML Headings technique: duplicated
> To: "Sailesh Panchang" <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
> Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 5:58 PM
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> H42: Using h1-h6 to identify headings
>
> relates to  SC 1.3.1
>
> H69: Providing heading elements at the beginning of each section of content
>
> relates to  SC 2.4.1
>
>
>
> Comment: Both descriptions are essentially the same. I suggest they be
> merged into a single technique and reference  both  SC
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sailesh Panchang
>
> ================================
>
>
> Response from the Working Group
>
> ================================
>
>
> H42 should describe the use of heading mark-up to label headings
> semantically, but also contained a good deal of discussion about how to use
> headings. We have moved the discussion and examples of ways to use headings
> to organize content from H42 to H69. See
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS/H42.html and
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS/H69.html .
>
>
>
> ================================
Response from the Working Group
================================
Re: Discussing heading hierarchy in the description:
H69 involves providing heading elements in order to fulfill SC 2.4.1. It is
more relevant to advise the author to properly nest headings (even though
it is not required here), since the author is adding content and can
possibly affect the heading hierarchy.
H42, on the other hand, involves proper semantic notation of currently
existing headers. In such a case, it is less likely the author will be able
to affect the heading hierarchy.
Please note in any event, that even in H69, nesting headers is only
advisable and not required.

Re: the words "in some technologies":
The technique does relate to HTML and therefore the words "in some
technologies" can be removed.

Re: Example #2 note:
The comment is correct in that mentioning "bypass blocks of navigation" in
the note is not relevant here, yet the example certainly is, as well as the
note itself, which relates to choice of markup, and this technique is about
correct markup. Therefore, we should remove the above words from the note,
and leave the example as is.

Re: Merging the two techniques:
The usage of headers in these techniques are not identical. H42 involves
proper semantic markup, while H69 involves adding headers to the content.
Therefore, they should not be merged.

We have made the following edits as a result of this issue:
1. Remove "in some technologies" from the description, so that the
paragraph begins "Headings are designed to convey..."
2. Remove the reference to bypassing blocks of navigation in the note to
example #2, so that is starts out "It is important to note that the example
code below is not intended to prescribe what level of heading should..."
3. Update UA notes for H69 per
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2011JulSep/0177.html.


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, 21 December 2011 23:28:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:14 UTC