WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Apr 16, 2012 8:20PM

On Apr 16, 2012, at 9:29 PM, Jared Smith 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.

If WCAG 2.0 is a normative standard, the normative text always and without exception trumps the informative text.

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that one might interpret informative text to contradict normative text - and then follow the informative.

>> 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.

Since the source of the notion that it's not "absolutely required" is informative text that appears to be at cross-purposes with the normative, I'm not sure this is a reasonable conclusion.

If heading levels don't matter (normatively), than why do nested lists matter? It's essentially the same problem. If 1.3.1 applies to lists, why not to the document itself?

>> - 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.

This is interesting, but seems arbitrary to me, and I can't locate the distinction you are drawing in the supporting docs.

I don't see how the relationships between headings could be any less significant to document navigability than the relationship between a heading and the content it heads.

After all, headings also head headings, right?

>> 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.

This is the exact problem, well put!

> 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.

"Beauty", eh?

OUCH! That's a really mean thing to say about a normative standard!

;-)

> 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.

The question is: can NON-logical structure be WCAG 2.0 conforming?

I don't see how the answer can be "yes" and the WCAG mission still be honored. Ok, I can see letting shorter web-pages get away with it because they generally have so few headings in any case… but longer documents? No way.

My recent article on the subject….

http://www.commonlook.com/heading-levels-navigation-or-decoration

Duff.