WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WC3 Example #1 of tagging acronym expansion text yields a yellow warning on the PAC checker.

for

From: Philip Kiff
Date: Dec 16, 2023 6:01AM

In the last of the sample images you sent, the Object Properties shows
that the Span tag has a Structure Tag of Heading Level 2. In my test
file, my Span tag has a Structure Tag of Span. The parent Heading 2
container has a structure tag of Heading 2.

I think PAC is flagging it in your case because your Span for some
reason has a structural container value of Heading 2, and that means
that you actually have a Heading 2 structure nested inside another
Heading 2 structure, instead of a Span inside a Heading 2. I'm not 100%
sure how that got configured that way, or why yours ends up like that
but my sample doesn't in either PAC 2021 or PAC 2024.

Attaching two screenshots from my sample showing the tag structure on
mine. One shows the Object Properties and Accessibility Tags tree while
the other shows how the containers appear in the Content sidebar. The
Object Properties of the Span container in the WC3 example also show a
Structure Tag of Span even while the tag is nested in their case inside
an LBody.

Phil.

On 2023-12-15 11:15 p.m., Laura Roberts wrote:
> Bevi - I am using the 2021 PAC checker - I'll try the 2024 tomorrow when I
> get a chance.
>
> Phil, that's exactly what I did and I get the yellow warning. The odd thing
> is that if I just tag the acronym as a paragraph, then pull the word out of
> the paragraph tag and put it in with the original - I get no yellow warning
> and the screen readers still read the expansion text.
>
> I'm very familiar with the Placement/Block issue of inline objects, but
> when it comes to span tags, it doesn't matter whether I add placement block
> to the attribute or not, I get the same error regardless.
>
> Error with Placement/Block added to attributes:
>
> [image: image.png]
>
> Sample with span (doesn't matter whether it's inside a heading tag or a P
> tag.
> [image: image.png]
>
> Sample of hack that gives no error and JAWS/NVDA still reads expansion text:
> [image: image.png]
>
> Expansion Text (in case anyone is wondering)
> [image: image.png]
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 5:02 PM Philip Kiff< <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
>> I just did a quick test on a sample doc and was able to add expansion
>> text to a Span tag and then pass PAC 2021 and PAC 2024 cleanly. So I'm
>> not sure that the example or the PAC 2024 are wrong.
>>
>> Though the W3C instructions for creating a new Span tag didn't work for
>> me using Acrobat Pro DC: I created the Span tag by using the "Reading
>> Order" tool, selecting the text, marking it as a Paragraph, and then
>> manually editing the tag properties and changing it from Paragraph to
>> Span using the "Accessibility Tags" panel. THEN I added the Expansion
>> Text in the Content tab of the Object Properties.
>>
>> The error message you quote often pops up when there is an issue with
>> the "Placement" attribute of a tag: especially when an "inline" tag is
>> placed at the root level, or when a "block" tag is placed within another
>> "block" tag incorrectly. Normally a Span tag has an "inline" placement
>> and it must be nested within a tag/container with a "block" placement. I
>> wonder if somehow your Span tag has the wrong placement attribute?
>>
>> Phil.
>>
>> On 2023-12-15 3:00 p.m., Laura Roberts wrote:
>>> From WC3 on tagging acronyms:
>>>
>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Techniques/pdf/PDF8.html#:~:text=In%20a%20tagged%20PDF%20document,create%20a%20new%20Span%20tag
>>> .
>>>
>>> Example #1 of tagging acronym expansion text yields a yellow warning on
>> the
>>> PAC checker.
>>> The warning is: Possibly inappropriate of a span structure element.
>>>
>>> If you don't use the span tag at all for the word, then the screen
>> readers
>>> read the expansion text just fine and you get no PAC errors.
>>>
>>> Anyone have some insight into this?
>>>
>> >> >> List archives athttp://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>> >>
>
>
> > > List archives athttp://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> Address list messages <EMAIL REMOVED>