Re: 1.3.1 info and relationships

Just a quick note that I agree with Patrick despite my earlier post. If
those headers actually make sense as headers but are just not visually
different from the rest of the text, my team would not fail the SC.

Greetings,


*Brian Bors*


Op di 23 mrt. 2021 om 20:14 schreef Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk
>:

> On 23/03/2021 18:43, Guy Hickling wrote:
> > I understand what is being said about the inverse view of the problem
> > not actually being covered, because there are a number of WCAG success
> > criteria that don't actually cater for the inverse situation although
> > they really should. But in this case, with 1.3.1 and the situation
> > raised here, I don't think there is a problem.
> >
> > Consider it this way. If I see three paragraphs of text on a page,
> > that's all there is - three simple paragraphs. I expect that content to
> > be conveyed to assistive technology as three paragraphs, with no other
> > semantic structures or other nonsense thrown in.
> >
> > So if I then turn my screen reader on and start hearing about headings
> > or tables or other suchlike stuff, that's a fail!
>
> But let's take it to an extreme other end...the author added correct
> headings to offer additional structural information/easy landing points
> for AT users, but has visually hidden them. That's not necessarily a
> fail (most auditors will be ok with it, unless it's overdone and starts
> becoming too unnecessarily verbose, but strictly speaking that's not
> necessarily covered by 1.3.1).
>
> I seem to remember we had a vague discussion around this very topic not
> so long ago where we did youch on various aspects, including text that
> visually looks like regular text, but is marked structurally as a
> heading, and does actually make sense structurally as a heading but the
> designer chose that for a sighted user it was not worth emphasising it
> because it was clear from the layout/context what that particular part
> of the page was. Sadly, the closest I can find is a different discussion
> about a series of links in a navigation necessarily requiring a list
> around them or not...
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2020AprJun/0137.html /
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1159
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
>