WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Why is WCAG 2.0 criterian 2.4.6. only leve AA?

for

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Apr 23, 2012 12:47PM


On Apr 23, 2012, at 2:22 PM, Gunderson, Jon R wrote:

>> For this reason, I don't understand why (or even how) 2.4.10 is broken
>> out from 2.4.6.
>
> 1.3.1 Requires the use of headers if there are things in the "document"
> that visually look like headers.

Does it require the use of "headers" or of "heading levels".

If "heading levels" are used in the document (and with HTML, it's pretty clear-cut if heading levels are used!), what rule(s) apply for 1.3.1, if any?

> So 2.4.6 only comes into play when nothing in the "document" looks
> visually like a heading.

Â…but if something DOES "visually" seem like a heading (and this could be via style OR text (i.e., section enumeration) then 2.4.6 applies?

Ok, I can buy that. If 1.3.1 doesn't apply, 2.4.6 can't; fine.

But - if 1.3.1 IS violated, 2.4.6 is probably also violated - ?

> Just learned this a few weeks ago at a WCAG 2.0 techniques group meeting.
>
> So 1.3.1 has a lot of conditional requirements.

Indeed.

> Also in relationship to 2.4.6 in general people are unlikely to put into a
> document headings that are not meaningful these days.

"Meaningful" is at issue. HTML 4 defines "heading" one way. HTML 5 defines it in a different way. PDF, in yet another.

The Techniques provided to address this question are all HTML-centric, and HTML 4.0-centric at that.

Here's my latest article on the subject: I'd love to know how I'm getting this wrong, if I am:

http://www.commonlook.com/The-Definition-of-Heading

Duff.