RE: About tests 37-41 (headers)

More info about this:

<blockquote 
cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-logical-headings">
For example, in HTML, use H2 to indicate a subsection of H1.
</blockquote>

<blockquote
cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#document-headers">
Since some users skim through a document by navigating its headings, it is 
important to use them appropriately to convey document structure. Users 
should order heading elements properly. For example, in HTML, H2 elements 
should follow H1 elements, H3 elements should follow H2 elements, etc. 
Content developers should not "skip" levels (e.g., H1 directly to H3).
</blockquote>

Eric Meyer stated that headers imply importance, but W3C documentation 
states that headers imply structure. Anyway, I would not require it for 
priority 1, but I would require it for priority 3 or 2 (in WCAG 1.0 it was 
priority 2).

Vicente Luque Centeno
Dep. Ingeniería Telemática
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
http://www.it.uc3m.es/vlc

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Vicente Luque Centeno wrote:

>
> Hi again,
>
> I don't think it is possible to have two documents in a single Web page (each 
> one in a different table cell). I guess only two options for that:
>
> 1.- Inline frames (to make them really different documents).
>
> 2.- That each table cell contains well structured SUB-documents. In this 
> case, the first heading of both SUB-documents should nest properly within the 
> document structure. I both sub-documents begin with a (let's say) h4, then 
> both table cells should be direclty preceded by a h3, h4, h5, h6, but not a 
> h1 or a h2. Otherwise, such sub-documents (HTML snippets would be a better 
> name) will be well structured but the whole document will not.
>
> I disagree with Eric Meyer's article because he chooses headings because of 
> their presentation and his example is very subjective (he wants a h4 for a 
> header just directly after a h1, but such h4 is not so important to become a 
> h2, so he prefers skiping headers).
>
> I think that it is OK to skip headers for "A level" pages (or maybe also for 
> "AA level"), but a "AAA level" page should avoid bad header hierarchy, 
> because, as Chris said, users get benefits from proper header nesting.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Vicente Luque Centeno
> Dep. Ingeniería Telemática
> Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
> http://www.it.uc3m.es/vlc
>
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Jim Thatcher wrote:
>
>> Let me try a different argument - I think my "areas" concept was too
>> nebulous. My contention is that those who argue for an allowed heading
>> structure are thinking of a single structured document, where for example,
>> the concept of "preceding header" is obvious.
>> 
>> What about this case? I have a web page which consists of exactly two well
>> structured documents - well structured in your sense. Document one is on 
>> the
>> left side; document two is on the right side (a newspaper site might have
>> something like this). For specifics, let's say I did this with a table
>> (shame!) so Document one is in the first cell and Document two is in the
>> second cell.
>> 
>> What is the relationship of the last heading in document 1 and the first in
>> document 2? If that relation ship is "precedes" then I think the whole
>> proposed structure at the beginning of this thread falls apart. If the
>> relationship is not "precedes" then ... well, I don't know!
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> Accessibility Consulting: http://jimthatcher.com/
>> 512-306-0931
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vicente Luque Centeno [mailto:vlc@it.uc3m.es]
>> Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 6:23 AM
>> To: Jim Thatcher
>> Cc: 'Johannes Koch'; 'WCAG'; chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca
>> Subject: RE: About tests 37-41 (headers)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>>> With CSS positioning the
>>>>> areas can be in any order.
>>> 
>>>> They can _appear_ (visually) in any order. But there is still a linear
>>>> order when reading the document linearly.
>>> 
>>> I am not being clear, again. What I called the areas could be (in some
>>> circumstances) in any linearized (or source code) order what so ever and
>> as
>>> a consequence any last heading of one area could precede any area's first
>>> heading.
>> 
>> I am afraid that's only possible using CSS, and documents should still be
>> readable without CSS. So, any re-order in the position made by a CSS
>> should not discourage from having well structured documents anyway. No
>> matter how linearization or renderization is done. The issue is to have
>> well structured documents. They might be rendered in any order, of course,
>> but structure is more important than renderization.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Jim
>>> 
>>> Accessibility Consulting: http://jimthatcher.com/
>>> 512-306-0931
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
>> Behalf
>>> Of Johannes Koch
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:18 AM
>>> To: 'WCAG'
>>> Subject: Re: About tests 37-41 (headers)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jim Thatcher wrote:
>>>> I don't know what Ben's Navigation bar example is, but I suspect it is
>>>> related to what I want to say. I believe that any restriction on allowed
>>>> order of heading tags is wrong and based on an old fashioned (linear)
>> view
>>>> of a web page as a paper document. But web pages have many levels (areas)
>>> of
>>>> structure, Navigation bars, left or right navigation or advertising areas
>>> or
>>>> link areas, and, say, main content area(s). Different visually styled
>>> "area
>>>> headings" and "section headings" will/should appear in any and all of
>>> these
>>>> (perhaps in each area well structured). When you put these major sections
>>>> together, there is no requirement and no predicting how the last heading
>>> in
>>>> one area relates to the first in another area.
>>> 
>>> But does it make sense to have an h2 followed by an h5 _within_ one of
>>> these "areas"?
>>> 
>>>> With CSS positioning the
>>>> areas can be in any order.
>>> 
>>> They can _appear_ (visually) in any order. But there is still a linear
>>> order when reading the document linearly.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Johannes Koch
>>> In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
>>>                             (Te Deum, 4th cent.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>