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 19:03:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEy-OxGBRcTd6bVhFxXRhS_qmDY6zBPC1riOypDxLpDBX6ZfMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: Alan <alands289@gmail.com>, Rakesh Paladugula <prakesh369@gmail.com>, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <ram.eict2013@gmail.com>, WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Well said, Mike.

WCAG interpretations can comprise whole careers, and do.

Alan, I think we would all like and encourage headings to be used and
nested correctly.

But for technology agnostic reasons 1.3.1 has no requirement (in the
normative WCAG 2 standard language) that specifically identifies that
'headings must be nested properly'.

That was not because when WCAG 2 was being written that the WG members
didn't want to include that notion, but we were trying to move away from
the HTML technology-specific language in WCAG 1. Not an excuse, it is just
the landscape at the time.

Additionally, requiring nested headings *can* become a *requirement* of any
organization, if they so chose.

In a court of law though, the chances of winning a lawsuit against a
website based on headings not being nested properly, per WCAG 2
conformance, might be hard to prove.

Should developers use nested headings to improve accessibility? Can you use
1.3.1 as a basis of discussion to convince your developers to nest
headings? Absolutely!

On Mar 1, 2018 5:51 PM, "Michael Gower" <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G200.html>and G201: Giving users
> advanced warning when opening a new window
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G201.html>
> 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
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1803+Douglas+Street,+Victoria,+BC++V8T+5C3&entry=gmail&source=g>
>  V8T 5C3
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1803+Douglas+Street,+Victoria,+BC++V8T+5C3&entry=gmail&source=g>
> 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* <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*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accessibilityassociation.org_cpwacertificants&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=MXaARjk_Pn34vUl9k-EF2Y5L0I59YwsZvnSjRc4Vw1k&s=dQy2XK8iohK0gZLxdo0GdYvXL6Xbnaovirb580v-wtE&e=>
>
> *Cell: **703-371-5545* <703-371-5545>*|**ryladog@gmail.com*
> <ryladog@gmail.com>*|**Oakton, VA **|**LinkedIn Profile*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_katieharitosshea_&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=MXaARjk_Pn34vUl9k-EF2Y5L0I59YwsZvnSjRc4Vw1k&s=WPWTHKnD7IxkzqyHPmktlRSxkL3l9d1r8gzcsTojqaE&e=>
>
>
> 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*
> <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* <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 Friday, 2 March 2018 00:03:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 2 March 2018 00:03:36 UTC