- From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:53:54 -0400
- To: Devarshi Pant <devarshipant@gmail.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Devarshi, Someone from WCAG-WG should weigh in ... I too had made the same argument to them before. I also highlight out that there are techniques that point to multiple SC. So a technique that addresses multiple accessibility problems can be coherently combined into one and should be done for headings. Well breadcrumb or left nav is a 'section' of a page that is visually identified as a section even though they contain UI elements mostly. Non-sighted users too should be able to perceive them in like manner and navigate to them if needed. Aria-landmarks help now. But some prefer to use off-screen headings to provide this functionality instead. Sailesh On 5/16/12, Devarshi Pant <devarshipant@gmail.com> wrote: > Sailesh, > You make a valid point in your post. I think there should be greater > consensus on whether H69 is sufficient or not for SC 2.4.1, which > seemed to be the intent of the original post by Vivienne - correct me > otherwise. Also note that the definition of section (from > understanding SC 2.4.10 – Key Terms) reads: “A self-contained portion > of written content that deals with one or more related topics or > thoughts. Note: A section may consist of one or more paragraphs and > include graphics, tables, lists and sub-sections.” > Correct me, but this definition seems to imply that a section is part > of the written content besides other things. If one is to replace > ‘headings’ with ‘structure’ and ‘content’ with ‘sections,’ H42 > becomes, “…HTML and XHTML heading markup to provide semantic code for > headings (implying *structure*) in the content (implying *from which > Sections are derived*). Isn’t this H69 written differently? On a > related note, G141 and H69 may talk about the same thing but then > refer to different success criteria. Shouldn’t there be a single > technique on headings which points to multiple success criteria? > To help understand, I took a line from each of the techniques below: > **H42: The objective of this technique is to use HTML and XHTML > heading markup to provide semantic code for headings in the content. > (SC 1.3.1) > **H69: The objective of this technique is to use section headings to > convey the structure of the content. (SC 2.4.1) > **G141: The objective of this technique is to ensure that sections > have headings that identify them. (SC 1.3.1; 2.4.10) > > -Devarshi > >>>Sailesh wrote: > H69 is authored with reference to SC 2.4.1 and not SC 2.4.10. That's > why I maintain that being able to skip to an h1 or h2 that hopefully > is the main content is a byproduct of user agent's feature that lets > one skip headings to comprehend page structure etc. Then it does not > deserve to be a separate technique but maybe merged with H42. > Yes as you note, some pages do not have headings at start of some > content sections. Typically left nav or breadcrumb nav and sometimes > even main content, though there might be other headings on the page. > One may insert invisible headings to aid screen reader navigation ... > this is exploiting the screen reader's heading navigation feature. > This will not work for sighted keyboard users. Adding visible > headings where none exist will help the page comply with SC 2.4.10 > (AAA) and might provide an alternative way to skip to > main content SC 2.4.1). >
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 16:54:23 UTC