WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Can HTML tagged content conform to WCAG 2.0 without <body>, etc?

for

From: Duff Johnson
Date: Apr 21, 2015 12:39PM

On Apr 21, 2015, at 14:15, Andrew Kirkpatrick < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure how missing a <title> affects the accessibility of the file per se (it seems more like a usability issue rather than a Level A accessibility concern), but I certainly accept that it's a violation of 2.4.2 as written - thanks.
>
> The title is needed for users to be able to understand the identity of the web page/application. This is useful to sighted users who like to glance at the page titles shown in the browser window title or tab area, but for a low vision or blind user becomes a more critical feature as without the title the user needs to read into the content to identify what the page is.

In such a case both conventional and AT users would have to "read into the content", would they not? If so, then I don't understand the distinction you are making.

> Not having this in place results in more time being spent by users to to understand and orient themselves to the content, particularly if the first content on the page or pages is generic navigation content.

…equally true for all users, no?

>> What about <doctype>? It's missing as well…
>
> This would get you into the accessibility supported question. If the browser interprets the content without the DOCTYPE and presents it to the user without any ambiguity, then it is not going to fail 4.1.1 in my opinion.

> If the browser chokes on the content because it needs the DOCTYPE to render it properly for users, then you would have a 4.1.1 issue.

Ah, so doctype would be required for WCAG 2.0 if it resolves ambiguities, but not because it's required by the HTML specification?

> What's the basis for this thought exercise?

Just what it seems - I'm trying to understand WCAG 2.0 requirements that are not otherwise clear (to me).

If these matters are patently obvious to all (except me) then I apologize for wasting your time.

Duff.