WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: use of <pre> tag

for

From: Langum, Michael J
Date: Nov 5, 2010 9:30AM

I am mostly concerned with Section 508. I don't believe there is any explicit requirement for semantic markup (aside from tables). But section 508 DOES require "equivalent facilitation." I think you could (and should) make the argument that not explicitly marking up headers and lists means that there is not "equivalent facilitation."

-- Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Julie Dodd
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 10:36 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] use of <pre> tag

Hello Andrew,

Thank you for your reply and welcome.

In my haste, I might not have been exactly clear in my original email.

We have legal data that is currently being generated in an HTML file, but is displayed entirely with the <pre> tag. The headings are rendered in caps with double spacing between paragraphs. There are multi-level outlines that are of course, not rendered with list tags.

I have been advocating for proper markup of this content in order for it to be navigable for assistive technologies (as well as improved legibility for sighted users). As you pointed out, it will be a significant undertaking. I want to be sure I am accurate in my position before advocating for this effort.

Regards,
Julie


On Nov 4, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Simius Puer wrote:

> Hi Julie
>
> Welcome to the list.
>
> The short answer is: yes, it is required.
>
> If I am correct in interpreting what you are saying, you essentially
> have no mark-up other than <pre> in the entire document - in that
> case, whilst the document is not "inaccessible" as such, it contains
> absolutely no semantic mark-up and can not be considered accessible.
>
> I would go beyond that to say that the presentation of the document
> might also prove problematic for those with no disabilities as there
> is little to guide the user as to the hierarchy of the document - so
> this becomes a matter of usability rather than just accessibility.
>
> Whilst you could argue that all the content is 'technically'
> accessible (in
> a very tick-box approach) that doesn't make it genuinely so...and I
> know a great many people on this list would even disagree with the
> first part of what I've said there ;]
>
> If you think you have great many lengthy legal documents to deal with
> all I can say is that I worked as part of a team on http://
> www.opsi.gov.uk/ who a few years back added a great many back-years
> catalogue of UK legislation to their on-line catalogue. Not only did
> much of the data have to be imported from scratch, but the work on the
> XML schema and HTML/CSS mark-up to be used was very extensive....legal
> documents rarely have less than the 6 levels of heading provided in
> HTML for a start ;]
>
> Best regards
>
> ___