RE: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements

To seek a place between these two viewpoints, I'll offer the following. 
Where an H1 is followed by an H7, it is almost certainly going to be 
chosen to achieve a desired pre-existing presentation for a subheading, 
not because the content flows naturally between the levels. So I agree 
with Alan's statement that doing so simply to grab the heading 
presentation treatment is far less than optimal. I'd flag it if I were 
reviewing such content.

However, there are situations where non-contiguous heading levels can make 
structural sense -- where the optimal match may be an H1 > H3 structure in 
some circumstances. Think of a subject like travel, where larger countries 
may be divided into sections which it makes no sense to impose on Vatican 
City or Gibraltar. Either the editor is going to have to alter what is 
found at an H2 level for small countries (which could itself confuse any 
screen reader user browser by a certain heading level), or the editor is 
going to have to potentially skip levels to make information on, say, 
major cities, match up at the same hierarchical level across the sovereign 
states. Some authors will prefer the sectional content to offer contiguous 
heading levels; others will want a consistency through the content.

So i think it makes sense to say an optimal heading level follows a 
predictable and understandable hierarchical structure, without necessarily 
imposing a requirement that the hierarchy be contiguous.
---
In regard to Ramakrishnan's other questions about unique labels for 
regions and links which open in new windows...

There is no perfect place I know of to fail the use of the same label on 
two different regions on a page. However, it obviously flies in the face 
of consistent identification, etc. When I oversaw the creation of the IBM 
Accessibility Checklist, we decided to specifically call this out as a 
requirement in a supplemental comment for ARIA13. So for at least IBM 
products, it is a requirement.
http://www-03.ibm.com/able/guidelines/ci162/bypass_blocks.html#ARIA11supplement


In answer to your question about links opening new windows, there are two 
general techniques which cover this: G200: Opening new windows and tabs 
from a link only when necessary and G201: Giving users advanced warning 
when opening a new window 
Like all Sufficient Techniques, they are not requirements, but merely an 
acceptable way to meet the Predictable guideline. So while you can 
definitely improve predictable behaviour by incorporating them, they are 
not required to achieve accessibility, as measured by WCAG.

Trying to prove how something fails against WCAG is often a lot harder to 
do than showing how something succeeds. Hope that helps.

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:   ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>
To:     Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>, Rakesh Paladugula 
<prakesh369@gmail.com>
Cc:     Ramakrishnan Subramanian <ram.eict2013@gmail.com>, WAI Interest 
Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date:   2018-03-01 01:28 PM
Subject:        RE: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements



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
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:41 PM
To: Rakesh Paladugula
Cc: Ramakrishnan Subramanian; WAI Interest Group
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
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile

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