E-mail List Archives
Re: Query on heading hierarchy
From: KP
Date: Mar 23, 2018 12:07AM
- Next message: Patrick H. Lauke: "Re: Required fields with Talkback"
- Previous message: Vemaarapu Venkatesh: "Required fields with Talkback"
- Next message in Thread: glen walker: "Re: Query on heading hierarchy"
- Previous message in Thread: Birkir R. Gunnarsson: "Re: Query on heading hierarchy"
- View all messages in this Thread
But you would surely advise that the visual structure was sub-optimal.
I'd fail it on the grounds that the visual structure didn't reflect the logical heirarchy and the HTML structure must surely reflect the logical for this to be useful. If you're just ticking boxes on the other hand....
The visual structure is an access issue too for low vision, cognitive and the like.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 23/03/2018, at 17:51, Vemaarapu Venkatesh < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> For my quick understanding let me consider this heading structure.
> Countries(h1)
> State1(h2)
> City(h3)
> State2(h2)
> City(h3)
> This naturally seems to be well structured and can find no issues if visual
> appearance of headings matches with screen reader announcement of headings
> also.
> Now if the structure is like
> Countries(h1)
> State1(h2)
> City(h2)
> State2(h2)
> City(h2)
> Assume these are h2's visually also and screen reader speaks out the same.
> Obviously it's a bad structure but screen reader conveys the same visual
> formatting as they are real h2's.
> Can I understand this context passes SC1.3.1. Am I getting the things right?
>
> Regards,
> Venkatesh
> > > >
- Next message: Patrick H. Lauke: "Re: Required fields with Talkback"
- Previous message: Vemaarapu Venkatesh: "Required fields with Talkback"
- Next message in Thread: glen walker: "Re: Query on heading hierarchy"
- Previous message in Thread: Birkir R. Gunnarsson: "Re: Query on heading hierarchy"
- View all messages in this Thread