W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2017

Re: Heading structure with 1.3.1 Info and Relationships and 2.4.1 Bypass Block

From: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 11:40:32 -0600
Message-ID: <CAH2ngETYDhM5O4GL99uMM4z3MvUuLxVNXxL6XahYL-6prBGBKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "McSorley, Jan" <jan.mcsorley@pearson.com>
Cc: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Jan, Phill, et al

I agree with Phill, in that skipping heading levels does not fail 1.3.1.  I
think it would be a wonderful addition to WCAG 2.1 or Silver.

WCAG 2.0 is a minimum bar...it is not all best practices.  There were
reasons that skipped heading levels were not included in WCAG 2.0 SC 1.3.1.

G

glenda sims    |   team a11y lead   |    deque.com    |    512.963.3773


*web for everyone. web on everything.* -  w3 goals

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:18 AM, McSorley, Jan <jan.mcsorley@pearson.com>
wrote:

> With all due respect, I don't agree that skipping headings is "an equal
> usability issue for everyone." I believe that it is much more
> time-consuming, and potentially confusing, for a person without sight to
> determine what is happening with heading structures that skip heading
> levels than it is for a person with sight.
>
> I believe that heading structure for people who rely on the use of screen
> reading technology means something more than people who are able to see
> visual headings.  People who can see the headings, don't rely on them for
> navigation in the same way people without sight do.  I think that it is
> unfortunate that consensus could not be met to use best practice with
> heading structure.  It is certainly a fairness issue in assessment and I
> believe that it has a much bigger impact on usability than people think it
> does.
>
>
> Jan McSorley
> VP, Accessibility
> Psychometrics and Testing Services
>
> 400 Center Ridge Drive, Suite E
> Austin, TX  78753
> M - (512) 673-9569
> Twitter: @Jan_McSorley
> Skype:  jan.mcsorley
> www.linkedin.com/in/janmcsorley
>
> Learn more at pearson.com
>
> [image: Pearson]
>
> *We put a man on the moon in the 1960's ... surely we can make information
> technology fully accessible to people with disabilities.  It can be done
> ... it must be done ... it will be done!*
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
> wrote:
>
>> *1.3.1*
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#content-structure-separation-programmatic>*Info
>> and Relationships:* Information, *structure*
>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#structuredef>,
>> and *relationships*
>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#relationshipsdef>conveyed
>> through *presentation*
>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#presentationdef>can
>> be *programmatically determined*
>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#programmaticallydetermineddef>
>> or are available in text. (Level A)
>>
>> 1. I do not believe skipping a heading level is an issue for assistive
>> software users any more than it is for a non-assistive software user.  In
>> other words, it is an equal usability issue for everyone, but not a 1.3.1
>> success failure.
>>
>> 2. I agree that headings (H1-H6) should be used structurally as the HTML
>> markup language semantics intended them to be used, but 1.3.1 does not
>> require the use of headings, does not required that headings be used all
>> the time in all content, nor that when heading are used that they be used
>> sequentially, nor that there only be one and only one heading level 1 per
>> page.
>>
>> 3. 1.3.1 doesn't require that presentation include structure, but that if
>> and when it does present structure and relationships through presentation,
>> that the same information is available through mark-up (or available in
>> text).
>>
>> If we want to "add" a new success criteria that requires that if and when
>> heading levels are used, that they be used sequentially, but we have to
>> allow for many situations that are consistent with the intent of the HTML
>> specification.  For example:
>>
>> a. Page that is quoting a part of a page that doesn't include a heading
>> level 1 should be allowed.  In other words starting with a heading level 2
>> or 3.
>>
>> b. Heading level 2 can follow a heading 3 or 4 if it is going back up a
>> level.  For example:
>>         H1
>>                 H2
>>                         H3
>>                 H2
>>                         H3
>>                                 H4
>>                 H2
>>
>> c.  Page that doesn't include any heading level 3's, but uses a
>> consistent heading level 4 for all footers across a set of pages should be
>> allowed.  In other words, it is OK to skip a heading level on a page in
>> some situations.
>>
>> So, with these examples we can begin to see why the working group could
>> NOT reach consensus to ALWAYS require the use of headings, ALWAYS starting
>> heading level 1 and NEVER skipping a heading level.
>> ___________
>> Regards,
>> Phill Jenkins
>> pjenkins@us.ibm.com
>> Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
>> IBM Research Accessibility
>> ibm.com/able <http://www.ibm.com/able>
>> facebook.com/IBMAccessibility <http://www.facebook.com/IBMAccessibility>
>> twitter.com/IBMAccess
>> ageandability.com
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2017 17:41:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 3 January 2017 17:41:06 UTC