Sorry for this confusion: I made a mistake. Its H69 and H69 is a sufficient technique to bypass blocks.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Techniques/html/H69
BTW: there is no consensus about it being sufficient in the real world.
I myself changed my opinion during this discussion (especially you made some very good points, Patrick). Anyway in WCAG 2.2 it still will be sufficient. There are valuable pros and cons - as always.
If someone is interested in this discussion (it’s really looooong):
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1712
Are 'Headings' enough to pass 2.4.1: Bypass Blocks · Issue #1712 · w3c/wcag
github.com
This discussion really has taught me a lot about the work of the working group in general, why things are the way they are and also why it’s so difficult to change something in WCAG (at least without a major release).
> Am 12.08.2023 um 15:33 schrieb Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>:
>
>
>
> On 10/08/2023 06:13, Marc Haunschild (Accessibility Consulting) wrote:
>>> The Understanding document says the "same list item". I believe the term and definition are considered the 'same' item.
>> Besides there is a sufficient technique (H80) that uses a preceding heading as context.
>
> Note that H80 is "advisory" rather than "sufficient", and - as ever a great source of consternation/confusion - this means that it either is, or isn't, actually meeting the requirements of the SC it relates to...
>
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/understanding-techniques
>
> Related, I tried to grasp that particular nettle a while ago, but the results are inconclusive...
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1097
>
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
> https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
