W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2018

Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 16:59:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEy-OxExmdK-a8yeoHzzZyzpYjENoa63eOGw8yNRYW8DjO=y4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>
Cc: Rakesh Paladugula <prakesh369@gmail.com>, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <ram.eict2013@gmail.com>, WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I think there is a *huge* difference between what we tell testers vs
designers/developers.....

For TESTING: WCAG 2.0 should be considered as a 'minimum set' of
requirements.

For DEVELOPMENT: The functional requirements should include WCAG 2.0 plus
best-practices that we know are successful. Once WCAG 2.1 becomes a
Recommendation at the W3C, then organizations could/should begin to include
those new success criteria as additional best-practices (until such time
their governing body requires it or some other requirements).

** katie **

*Katie Haritos-Shea*
*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect *

*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS = *
*CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>

*Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* *ryladog@gmail.com
<ryladog@gmail.com>* *| **Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:10 PM, ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I’ll be the first to push back on this on behalf of the disabled and
> not the designer.
>
>
>
> I’ve always said we can make are web pages technically accessible by the
> letter of the guidelines but they may still not be accessible to those who
> need them to be so.
>
>
>
> If you are coding your accessibility for designers, then you can have h1
> followed by h5.
>
> If you are coding your accessibility for blind users, then follow the
> proper hierarchical order.
>
>
>
> You will have a better website and you won’t have to manually review each
> suggested violation of this out of order heading structure by every
> automated testing tool which will flag this as a potential violation.
>
>
>
> You can always set a font value with class if your designers need a
> certain “look” for your text on the page.
>
>
>
> Think of how you decide to code for accessibility makes a disabled person
> - and in this case a blind person - feel when they use your site.
>
>
>
> Alan Smith
>
>
>
> *From: *Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:41 PM
> *To: *Rakesh Paladugula <prakesh369@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Ramakrishnan Subramanian <ram.eict2013@gmail.com>; WAI Interest
> Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Phill Jenkins is correct concerning the headings. WCAG 2.0 does not
> specifically require headings be nested.
>
>
>
> And yes, this is the right place to post this kind of question on WCAG
> conformance ....:-)
>
>
> ** katie **
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea *
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect *
>
> *WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, **IAAP CPACC+WAS
> = **CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>
>
> *Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>* *|* *ryladog@gmail.com
> <ryladog@gmail.com>* *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*
>
>
> People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
> but people will never forget how you made them feel.......
>
> Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
> dictate where we are going.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Rakesh Paladugula <prakesh369@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> My thoughts are :
>
> 1. Main heading can be a level 2. No harm in it. Having h5 after h2 is a
> violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships.
> 2. I consider having improper text for labels as violation as per 2.4.6
> headings and labels. In your second container the label is Apple but the
> text is of banana.
> 3. I don’t think it is a violation.
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Rakesh
>
>
>
> On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
> ram.eict2013@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Members,
> I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
> I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
> related issues mentioned below.
> Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
> helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
> Heading order:
> Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
> violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
> The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
> The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
>
> Landmark regions:
> When there are different content given inside two different aria
> region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
> <div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
> Apple related content goes here
> </div>
> <div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
> Bannana related content goes here
> </div>
> 3. Links which open in a new window:
> When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
> which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
> violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks and Regards
> Ramakrishnan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2018 21:59:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 1 March 2018 21:59:36 UTC