WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Should site logos be H# tags?

for

From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Nov 16, 2005 10:20PM

Paul,

> I would strongly caution against calling semantic markup a "minor
> issue." For one thing, authors who use semantic markup in a logical
> way are much more likely to create logical documents. This increases
> accessibility for everybody, but can be especially important to users
> with cognitive disabilities.


Absolutely. I think we can take it as a given that semantic markup is
the backbone of accessible web development. What we can also say however
is that how this is utilised is dependent on the individual structural
requirements of any given document and HTML (et al) gives us a great
degree of flexibility and choice. It can be suggested that this in
itself can lead to confusion.

However, I would never for an instant suggest that any developer should

> brush aside semantic markup

Just for the record

Josh




Paul Bohman wrote:

> Joshue O Connor wrote:
>
>>> Or is this just a really
>>> minor issue?
>>>
>>
>> I think so. Whatever form your structure takes it is important to be
>> consistent across your site, so you dont mark up your main headings
>> as H1 on some pages and then use it for some other purpose on another.
>
>
> I would strongly caution against calling semantic markup a "minor
> issue." For one thing, authors who use semantic markup in a logical
> way are much more likely to create logical documents. This increases
> accessibility for everybody, but can be especially important to users
> with cognitive disabilities.
>
> It may be true that there is no "one right way" to use headings to
> achieve semantic meaning. In that sense this may be a minor issue, but
> don't be so quick to dismiss it. You could just as easily say "there
> is no one way to write alt text" which is completely true, but to then
> go the next step and say, "therefore it is a minor issue" is a gross
> misinterpretation.
>
> My guess is that if you had a group of accessibility "experts" look at
> a set of web pages, they would probably come to a reasonable consensus
> on how to mark up the document's hierarchy, at least on the big areas
> of organization (assuming that the document lends itself to
> hierarchical organization).
>
> There will be some disagreements of course, largely due to the fact
> that we don't have an established convention or protocol or a list of
> widely accepted "best practices" yet. For example, some may choose to
> make the site's logo an <h1> on every page, with an additional <h1>
> for the title of the content. Others would say that there should be
> only one <h1> and that the logo should not be an <h1> at all.
>
> Specific issues such as this may be relatively minor, but the overall
> idea is not: semantic markup is important. When used properly, it
> creates more understandable documents. The headings help assistive
> technologies (and search engines, and all other technologies that try
> to interpret content) extract meaning from otherwise undifferentiated
> text.
>
> If we brush aside semantic markup, we are paving the way to brush
> aside cognitive disabilities as if they don't matter. The semantic
> markup does matter. The hierarchy does matter. The text within
> headings must be chosen carefully, in the same way that alt text must
> be chosen carefully. The document itself should reflect a logical
> organization, and authors should take this into consideration on all
> levels.
>
> There will be differences of opinion with regard to implementation in
> specific instances, but there's nothing wrong with that. That's where
> human creativity comes into play.
>