E-mail List Archives
Re: Accessible P Tag Usage
From: Duff Johnson
Date: Mar 19, 2019 10:03AM
- Next message: Jonathan Avila: "Re: Accessible P Tag Usage"
- Previous message: Mohith BP: "Re: Placeholder"
- Next message in Thread: Jonathan Avila: "Re: Accessible P Tag Usage"
- Previous message in Thread: Mohith BP: "Re: Accessible P Tag Usage"
- View all messages in this Thread
Just a few observationsâ¦ I wish I had more time for this fascinating question today...
> I agree with Patrick. This is a very low priority issue and I dont
> think one need to flag it as an violation as there are many ways such
> as inserting <br> tags to provide line breaks between the content.
Let's not confuse paragraphs with line-breaks! These are very different semantics.
> Please note not marking up headings, tables and list items impacts the
> screen reader users heavily hence these should be flagged as
Let's also not just think in terms of screen readers! Users with ATs that highlight or zoom could well be impacted.
>> My personal opinion is that it is not a requirement for text to be contained
>> in at least a paragraph element. My thinking is that a paragraph element
>> conveys that its contents are all part of a paragraph--and that might not be
>> the information or relationship that the content author wants to convey.
I have to disagree - there's a clear obligation to provide semantics for each element of content.
It's not OK to leave some text flopping about in a <div> just because it's likely that some ATs will stumble over it correctly and in-context!
>> Then G115 says:
>> "... Using the appropriate semantic elements will make sure the
>> structure is available to the user agent. This involves explicitly
>> indicating the role that different units have in understanding the meaning
>> of the content. The nature of a piece of content as a paragraph, header,
>> emphasized text, table, etc. can all be indicated in this way. ..."
>> The strictest interpretation of these items is that it is required that
>> relationships in content are programmatically available, including content
>> "... such as a paragraph ...". Is this to be taken as saying text should, at
>> a minimum, programmatically be a <p> tag, unless there is a more appropriate
>> structural tag?
IMO, this is a correct interpretation.
>> We are aware that the sufficient techniques do not constitute required ways
>> of doing things, so we are hesitant to violate a customer based on the
>> suggested ways of meeting the criteria. However, when a failure condition
>> says content must be semantically appropriate, then a sufficient technique
>> lists paragraphs as appropriate semantics for text content, this implies
>> that if text content is not in a <p> or a more appropriate tag (like
>> headings, lists, etc.) it is not making the relationship/information about
>> the text "available to all users."
>> On the flip side, what about including an empty <p> tag with no text
>> content, or only an image?
This is also invalid, although with an admittedly relatively low impact, since software can easily include heuristics to deal with empty elements.
>> Our concern arises from the fact that AXE and WAVE do not violate text
>> content which is not included in a <p> or other semantically appropriate
Interesting - IMO, this should be addressed as a bug.
Leaving text lying about in random <divs>â¦ how is that not a straight-up violation of 1.3.1?