WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Query on heading hierarchy

for

From: chagnon@pubcom.com
Date: Mar 22, 2018 2:20PM

I have to laugh right now as our shop works on one document created by several people, each with their own version of how Heading 2 should look, or their own "very special" bullets.

With every page bringing a new visual appearance of the headings, lists, and body text (all manually formatted, of course, without styles), I'm not sure it's possible to meet the SC 1.3.1 definition quoted below: ensure that information and relationships that are implied by visual or auditory formatting are preserved when the presentation format changes.

In this sample, there's no rhyme or reason to why one heading looks one way, another looks a different way. The multiple author's didn't create a structured, logical relationship anywhere in the document.

In umpteen decades of writing, editing, typesetting, designing, and programming documents (from SGML to XML and HTML), nowhere does the publishing industry say that structure must follow visual presentation.

It's the other way around: Logical structure comes first, then the visual formatting to make the structure clear.

SC 1.3.1 needs to be rewritten.

—Bevi
— — —
Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | <EMAIL REMOVED>
— — —
PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
consulting ' training ' development ' design ' sec. 508 services
Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
— — —

> On 20/03/2018 16:28, glen walker wrote:
>
>> The purpose of the guideline is to make sure the
>> semantic heading levels match the visual presentation.
>
> "The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that information
> and relationships that are implied by visual or auditory formatting
> are preserved when the presentation format changes." (Understanding SC
> 1.3.1)