WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Query on heading hierarchy

for

From: Karlen Communications
Date: Mar 23, 2018 8:46AM

That may be the true issue. Is accessibility just checking a box that says everything has Tags/markup and therefore is good to go or does accessibility include education and training on accessible document design? And remediating documents to provide structure and navigation.

When I look at a PDF document with Tags, do I just say, OK, it has Tags, we're good to go? I can add the PDF/UA identifier because technically it does have Tags and since PDF/UA is a technical standard, not a content standard, it really has nothing to do with my job as a remediator to ensure the content is accessible.

This would save a lot of time in that we wouldn't have to remediate any website or document to be "accessible" and we wouldn't need to purchase any expensive tools to help us do that...we just accept the garbage as the will and intent of the document author and push it out the door.

This seems to be where we are rapidly headed.

Cheers, Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of glen walker
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 8:37 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Query on heading hierarchy

Advise, yes, but it's not an a11y issue. Sadly, when the UX is bad for everyone, it's generally accessible. All users get the same terrible experience. As Kevin said, if you're checking off boxes on the SC list,
1.3.1 would get checked off, albeit begrudgingly.

I had a really hard time with this when I was doing a11y audits. I really wanted to fix the UX but was told to just check the box because that's all the client wanted. But you try to sneak in some UX advice to make it better for everyone.


On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:07 AM, KP < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> 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
> > > > > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > >
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >