WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

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

for

From: Weissenberger, Todd M
Date: Apr 22, 2015 9:27AM

>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?

I'd submit that the use of <title> is of greater benefit to a blind screen reader user, for example, than to some other users as the former tends to receive the page contents sequentially, where the latter may possess (many do, you know) a mechanism that permits a much quicker scan and intake process. A good and meaningful title is often the first indication an AT user has of the purpose of the document or resource, and thus enhances one's understanding of what is to come, enabling a clearer and faster decision-making opportunity.

So equally true for all users? I'd say no.

Duff, if you are curious about the rationale for certain WCAG success criteria, I'd also point you to the horse's mouth. " How to Meet WCAG 2.0: A customizable quick reference to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 requirements (success criteria) and techniques" (http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/Overview.php) is a very digestible resource, and includes links to pages that describe the Intent, Benefits, Techniques, and other background on each Success Criterion. I recommend it for both self-education and as a cure for insomnia.

Cheers,
Todd

-----Original Message-----
From: Duff Johnson [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 1:40 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Can HTML tagged content conform to WCAG 2.0 without <body>, etc?

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.