Re: Should page title not convey context SC 2.4.2 (A)

I believe the Page title (i.e the title element in the head) has outgrown, or rather 2.4.2, is rather limiting in terms of the desired objective.

A rewrite could easily see the H1 used to do the same with better context for most users, with an additional new SC (yes, I know, prob not feasible) which addresses the use of not only <title> but CIP (cataloguing in publication) related metadata, especially using RDF syntax.

Oh and hi :) <looks sheepish> Its been a while I know. Sorry :-/

Chris

Sent from Samsung Mobile

Sent from Samsung Mobile

 adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com> wrote: 

What about the rest of the pages - do they all have to have the site's name (or company name) ? For example, a title such as "Request for Company Information" - is descriptive for that page, but will not help you distinguish context between two sites. So, you would then have to put the site's name in the title for every page. Seems pretty restrictive.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Understanding doc for SC 2.4.2 says:
"The intent of this Success Criterion is to help users find content and orient themselves within it by ensuring that each Web page has a descriptive title. Titles identify the current location without requiring users to read or interpret page content".

Sometimes I see pages with title set to "Home" or "Home page" etc. with no reference to org.'s name. There is no logo / banner right below too.
There are other similar examples.
Now for instance, if I have ABC.com site open and say  also XYZ.com and both have set page titles to just "Home", then switching from one window to another really does not identify context ... though it conveys page topic as home page.

Likewise if I am on a "Read more" link placed below a heading text, say on ABC.com site for instance  the context info read out for the Read More link will be "Home" + the heading text. Home of what?
I fault such cases  saying page title is inadequate and it fails SC 2.4.2.
Certainly poor branding and poor design.
Opinions?
Sailesh Panchang
www.deque.com