WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Spence, Jason (MGS)
Date: Apr 23, 2012 2:53PM

-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Duff Johnson
Sent: April 23, 2012 2:48 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Why is WCAG 2.0 criterian 2.4.6. only leve AA?

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.

...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.


messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>