Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements

In theory, I would agree with you, Katie. But you would certainly know that
this doesn't practically work. Even when testers call something as a
violation itself, chances are less that they get fixed; but if we tell
designers and developers something is a best practice, I sincerely feel
that things never get addressed.

Having wrong structure / semantics should never be a best practice.
Thanks,
Vasu

Regards,

Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://twitter.com/CSrinivasu/
Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://serveominclusion.com

Let's create an inclusive web!

Lead Accessibility Consultant, Informatica


On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>