Re: Skipped headings

If I’m following, the semantic logic of categorizing information in the
proposed example is flawed. Therefore the subsequent structural logic
argument is also flawed. I do believe that if one works from commonplace
narratology and categorization of information, the rules of headings in
marking information as both structural and semantic elements will hold.

In other words, the issue here isn’t the “rules” of headings but the
quality of designing a meaningful narrative to which headings can
meaningfully be applied.

Note: Any assumption that we should distinguish in how Screen Reader users
use headings from how non-screenreader users use headings is also
misguided. Headings serve the same function for all readers of narrative
even if the functional technologies differ. Cognitively they assist in the
same way.

They topically outline the structurally meaningful units of a narrative.
That is kind of it. Hugely important but also pretty straightforward.

Spaghetti is neither of type “meal” or the similar or same as “Taco” in the
discourse of cuisine or food preparation. Note, in the example, they are
positioned structurally and semantically at the same level.

Spaghetti is, perhaps, of type “Pasta,” “Taco” is of type, perhaps,
“Mexican Cuisine”… finger foods vs played utensil foods? But neither
spaghetti or tacos are of likeness in the context of cuisine or food ways
discourse (I believe).

If we were actually designing a cookbook narrative, Spaghetti and Taco
wouldn’t seem to sit at the same categorical level. I.e., they meaningfully
represent very different “types” of things in a discourse on cuisine and
cooking instruction. Spaghetti could be a type of “Italian Cuisine,” but
work out the ingredients and instructions for preparing, without adding
additional characteristics, how does spaghetti differ from say linguini or
angel hair or penne or etc.? Cook time, sure, of a few other aspects. But
work the same logic to “Taco.” There’s “beef” (or chicken, fish, etc., of
type meat), but what about hard/soft, corn/flower, flat/bent, etc., which
are types of “taco” the material “thing” defined semantically by the phrase
“taco.”

In other words, saying Spaghetti is very much like saying Beef Taco we just
do not say “Spaghetti Pasta.” But you could and likely should if we were
actually designing a cookbook.

h1 My International Cookbook
> h2 Italian Cuisine
>> h3 Pastas
>>> h4 Spaghetti
>>>> h5 History of Spaghetti
>>>> h5 Tools for Preparation
>>>> h5 Ingredients
> h2 Mexican Cuisine
>> h3 Tacos
>>> h4 Beef Tacos
>>>> h5 etc.
>>>> h5 Ingredients

But even if we retained the given example, regardless of the questionable
nature of the informational design, the ingredients of spaghetti and the
ingredients of beef tacos are children of their parents, each have their
own unique genealogy, so no, heading levels will not be the same.





On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 5:24 PM Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com> wrote:

> Vanessa, if I understand you correctly, that whether a heading is
> implemented using h1 – h6 rather than just making text bigger and/or bolder
> is a matter of a web author’s preference?
>
>
>
> Again, the WCAG guidance is at best incomplete or worse inconsistent with
> regards to this.
>
>
>
> when is a heading a heading and when is a heading not a heading?
>
>
>
> what VISUAL characteristics make a heading? Colour? Size? Style? Vertical
> and/or horizontal alignment? Spacing? Topic? What comes before and after
> it? Author intention? Aesthetic preference?
>
>
>
> What are the characteristics that are conveyed by presentation that are
> significant in SC1.3.1 exactly?
>
>
>
> How can two implementations with different implications for a cohort of
> users – one larger and bolder font by way of designer preference and one a
> heading whose styling is controlled by a user agent – conform with the same
> success criterion?
>
>
>
> People who use a screen reader because they do not have functional vision
> (there are many use cases for screen reader use)  are no more or less
> likely to be ‘confused’ by non-contiguous headings or jumbled nesting
> levels than people who don’t use a screen reader.
>
>
>
> frustrated because navigation  is not as straightforward as it could be,
> annoyed because web authors don’t understand their needs’, dismayed because
> they miss content or discover it by accident or it is disconnected from
> other content, and so on …
>
>
>
> confusion is the state of an individual’s thinking not a phenomenon of a
> web site or application.
>
>
>
> I’d suggest that the utility of a heading for most screen reader users is
> as a navigational waypoint first and as a signpost for document structure
> second and as a descriptor for what it heads third.
>
>
>
> For people using vision, however, document structure and descriptions may
> be a higher priority as wayfinding is not an issue.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Vanessa Tillemans <vtillemans@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2024 2:06 AM
> *To:* Kevin Prince <kevin.prince@fostermoore.com>
> *Cc:* w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Skipped headings
>
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
>
>
> If you test the heading levels on the page for the Understanding document
> for 1.3.3, you will find that there is an h2 heading called "In Brief"
> followed by text that could appear to be headings because they are in bold
> and larger font, but they do not have a heading level assigned to them.
> The word "Goal" could be assumed to be a heading, but it is not
> programmatically, as there is no heading level assigned to it.  This is one
> way to approach your question.  Not all things need a heading level
> assigned to them.  You could simply use bold text and larger font, to avoid
> cluttering the page with a bunch of heading levels.
>
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/info-and-relationships.html
>
>
>
> there
>
>
>
> W3C does say that skipping headings can be confusing and should be avoided.
>
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/page-structure/headings/#heading-ranks
>
>
>
>
>
> Note that it says it *can* be confusing.  Not that it *is*.  It *can*
> be.  Your screen reader colleagues might be fine, but perhaps not all
> screen reader users would be, especially if they have cognitive
> limitations.  The idea with WCAG standards is to make the web a more
> accessible place to as many people as possible, including those screen
> reader users who would consider a skipped heading level a confusing thing..
>
>
>
> As you noted, skipping heading levels is not considered best practice.
> And it's not about strictly adhering to a set of rules.  It's about being
> able to say, "By assigning heading levels in this way, the maximum number
> of people possible will be able to understand and navigate this content."
> If it is indeed the goal that your content is accessible to as many people
> as possible, then there's the logic you were asking for. ;)
>
>
>
> You have the option to do what WCAG did in their Understanding document:
> you do not have to use headings for everything.  Bold, larger font can also
> suffice.  They could have used h3 headings there if they had wanted to, but
> they did not.  I do not disagree with that decision because the user can
> still access and navigate the content in an organized way.  In the case of
> your example, I would not assign heading levels to the "ingredients" text,
> but just make it a bold, larger font than the ingredients themselves.  The
> h3 heading for "Spaghetti" is great for getting a user to that point in the
> content, where they can continue reading to get the ingredients.  Also, by
> doing it this way, you avoid having the issue of skipped heading
> levels, going from h3 for "Spaghetti" to h5 for "ingredients."
>
>
>
> Hope this helps!  Have a great day!  ;)
>
>
>
> ~Vanessa Tillemans
>
> Website Accessibility Instructor
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/vanessa-tillemans/
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]ᐧ
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 9:55 PM Kevin Prince <kevin.prince@fostermoore.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Disclosure – I’m sighted and look for logic not slavish adherence to a
> rule for the sake of it.
>
>
>
> Firstly my colleagues who use screenreaders say that skipped headings do
> cause them to be confused: is that because  we, as an industry, have made
> the case too strongly that nesting must be seamless? Should we not be
> reflecting the relationships in the content not looking to plug apparent
> gaps.
>
>
>
> Take this example (which is an extension of the Webaim example on their
> page)
> H1: My Favorite RecipesH2: Quick and EasyH3: Spaghetti
>
>    - *Ingredients of spaghetti*
>
> H3: HamburgersH3: TacosH4: Beef Tacos
>
>    - *Ingredients of Beef tacos*
>
> H4: Chicken TacosH4: Fish Tacos
>
> I would strongly argue that visually, logically and semantically both sets
> of ingredients should be the same heading level – they are the same thing.
> However, because there are sub-types of Taco the Taco ingredients drop to
> H5. As the semantics are supposed to convey relationships then surely
> spaghetti ingredients are also H5 irrespective of where the sit respective
> to Spaghetti?
>
> I’m genuinely looking to understand why grouping similar things is wrong
> purely to maintain a lack of gaps. Visually you would clearly not miss the
> H4 under Spaghetti because it’s not needed – why is it so important for a
> screenreader?
>
>
>
> My reading also shows it’s strong best practice but not, as far as I can
> tell, a failure of 1.3.1.. And the essence of 1.3.1 is to convey the
> relationships shown visually (and visually all the ingredients are peers.
>
>
>
> Sorry – really  would like to hear the consensus on how this should be
> marked up and why?
>
>
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
> *Kevin Prince *
>
> Product Accessibility & Usability Consultant
>
> *E* kevin.prince@fostermoore.com
>
> Christchurch
>
> *fostermoore.com <http://www.fostermoore.com/>*
>
> This email and its contents are confidential. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you should contact the sender immediately, you must not use,
> copy or disclose any of the information in the email, and you must delete
> it from your system immediately.
>
>
>
>