WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Headings and WCAG2 compliance (1.3.1) [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

for

From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Apr 16, 2012 7:51PM

>> Can a user agent that understands headings but ignores levels still comply with WCAG 2.0?
>
> I don't know. The user agent is pretty much irrelevant to WCAG
> conformance. With that said, I agree that it's hard to call something
> compliant when the implementation of that compliance results in
> terrible accessibility.

I thought I saw an article based on a survey, that said screen readers
users refer hierarchy over a page that uses them randomly. And they
prefer a page that has headings without hierarchy (randomly) over a
page without any at all.

--
Ryan E. Benson



On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Jared Smith < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Duff Johnson wrote:
>
>> I get that the authors of WCAG 2.0 take the view that 1.3.1 does not require appropriate heading levels. What I don't understand (maybe I'm just dumb) is how the actual TEXT of 1.3.1 supports this view.
>
> I agree with you. The text of 1.3.1 certainly would suggest a logical
> heading level. It's the supporting materials that clarify (to me at
> least) that such is not really a requirement.
>
>> Secondarily, I don't understand why ignoring heading levels would be acceptable any more than would reading a nested list as if it wasn't nested (which everyone agrees is a no-no).
>
> I'm with you on this one. It's certainly bad practice. I was just
> pointing out that it doesn't seem to be absolutely required for WCAG
> conformance.
>
>> - If "structure and relationships" are to be "programmatically determined" how can this occur in the case of content in which heading levels don't reflect the document's actual structure?
>
> I interpret the relevant techniques to simply require that headings
> should be used, not that the overall document structure be logical. In
> other words, I believe it only requires a relationship between a
> content "chunk" and its own heading, not a logical relationship
> between "chunks"/headings.
>
>> Can a user agent that understands headings but ignores levels still comply with WCAG 2.0?
>
> I don't know. The user agent is pretty much irrelevant to WCAG
> conformance. With that said, I agree that it's hard to call something
> compliant when the implementation of that compliance results in
> terrible accessibility.
>
> The beauty of WCAG is that if you think it's a requirement, it can be.
> If you don't think it's required, it's not. I prefer to err on the
> side of better accessibility and would thus specify a logical heading
> structure to be WCAG conformant, despite what the details of WCAG
> suggest.
>
> I'm thinking I shouldn't have played devil's advocate on this one. :-)
>
> Jared
> > >