E-mail List Archives
Thread: Should site logos be H# tags?
Number of posts in this thread: 12 (In chronological order)
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Wed, Nov 16 2005 1:00PM
Subject: Should site logos be H# tags?
No previous message | Next message →
There's the age-old semantic debate as to what should be considered an
actual header.
On our current site, we have the site title, the 'sub site' title, and
then the content title:
Minnesota Judicial Branch
2nd District
How to pay a ticket
Page content
>From a semantics standpoint, this is usually the argued solution:
H1 = Minnesota Judicial Branch
H2 = 2nd District
H3 = How to pay a ticket
But from an accessibility standpoint, does that make as much sense? I'm
not sure how likely it is that people navigate a site/page via reading
down the headers, so maybe this isn't a major issue. I will have 'skip
to content' links at the very top as well.
-Darrel
From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Wed, Nov 16 2005 3:00PM
Subject: Re: Should site logos be H# tags?
← Previous message | Next message →
>
>
>I'm
>not sure how likely it is that people navigate a site/page via reading
>down the headers
>
Many screen reader users extract headings (say using Jaws) from a page
and therefore by scanning which aspects of the page content they may be
interested in, can navigate to them quickly, often bypassing the main
"site navigation". IMO - Aside from semantic issues, its very useful to
use accurate and informative heading titles for this reason.
Josh
Austin, Darrel wrote:
>There's the age-old semantic debate as to what should be considered an
>actual header.
>
>On our current site, we have the site title, the 'sub site' title, and
>then the content title:
>
>Minnesota Judicial Branch
>2nd District
>How to pay a ticket
>Page content
>
>>From a semantics standpoint, this is usually the argued solution:
>
>H1 = Minnesota Judicial Branch
>H2 = 2nd District
>H3 = How to pay a ticket
>
>But from an accessibility standpoint, does that make as much sense? I'm
>not sure how likely it is that people navigate a site/page via reading
>down the headers, so maybe this isn't a major issue. I will have 'skip
>to content' links at the very top as well.
>
>-Darrel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: Paul Bohman
Date: Wed, Nov 16 2005 3:40PM
Subject: Re: Should site logos be H# tags?
← Previous message | Next message →
Austin, Darrel wrote:
>>From a semantics standpoint, this is usually the argued solution:
>
> H1 = Minnesota Judicial Branch
> H2 = 2nd District
> H3 = How to pay a ticket
>
> But from an accessibility standpoint, does that make as much sense?
To me it makes sense. I suspect that any hierarchical outline that would
make sense to a sighted user would make equal sense to a screen reader
user, assuming that the screen reader has the capability to interpret
headings and pass on this information to the user (all current versions
of the major brands that I'm aware of have this capability). The
question then becomes "what is the structure of this content?" rather
than "does the document's structure work for screen reader users?" The
second question seems to ask whether hierarchies are different for
sighted users than they are for blind users. I don't think they are.
We are currently in the process of redesigning the WebAIM site, and this
issue has come up among us as well. Not every page has the same type of
layout or structure, so it makes it hard to say exactly what the
semantic structure of each page should be without taking the context
into account.
Here's what we've decided:
On the home page, make the WebAIM logo an <h1>, with smaller units of
<h2> and <h3> for the subtitles and their respective subsections.
For pages that contain articles and other content with titles, the logo
is not the <h1> (the logo is contained in a non-semantic <div> in our
case). The title of the article is the <h1>, with subsequent lower
levels of headings as appropriate.
There are also some pages that are more like portal pages, such as our
"Products" page or our "Services" page, each of which contains a list of
links, but very little in the way of unlinked prose. For these pages,
the <h1> is the word "Products" (or "Services", etc.), with the types of
Products receiving <h2> headings.
Do screen reader users actually use the headings for navigation? I don't
have any data to say one way or the other. They can if they want to, and
if they know that the functionality is available.
If I were a regular screen reader user, I think I would want to access a
list of headings in order to obtain an outline of the page's content. I
may not do this on all pages, but whenever I feel it would be
appropriate or useful.
Perhaps screen reader users on this list would like to tell us whether
they use headings, and how useful they find them.
--
Paul Bohman
Director of Training Products and Services
WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind)
www.webaim.org
Utah State University
www.usu.edu
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Wed, Nov 16 2005 4:20PM
Subject: RE: Should site logos be H# tags?
← Previous message | Next message →
> Many screen reader users extract headings (say using Jaws)
> from a page and therefore by scanning which aspects of the
> page content they may be interested in, can navigate to them
> quickly, often bypassing the main "site navigation". IMO -
> Aside from semantic issues, its very useful to use accurate
> and informative heading titles for this reason.
Right...and hence my question.
Is it annoying to navigate pages via headers and hear the site/subsite
on each and every page? Or would people prefer to have the H1 be the
first header of unique content on that page? Or is this just a really
minor issue?
-Darrel
From: Patrick Burke
Date: Wed, Nov 16 2005 5:00PM
Subject: Re: Should site logos be H# tags?
← Previous message | Next message →
At 01:50 PM 11/16/2005, you wrote:
Do screen reader users actually use the headings for navigation? I
don't have any data to say one way or the other. They can if they
want to, and if they know that the functionality is available.
>If I were a regular screen reader user, I think I would want to
>access a list of headings in order to obtain an outline of the
>page's content. I may not do this on all pages, but whenever I feel
>it would be appropriate or useful.
>
>Perhaps screen reader users on this list would like to tell us
>whether they use headings, and how useful they find them.
Hi Paul & everyone,
I'm new here, but I've been rattling around the web access scene for
... a while now...
I'm a Jaws user & I find the navigation by headings to be very handy.
Jaws offers two methods: hit H to jump to the next heading
(regardless of level), or use Insert-F6 to get a tree view of the
heading structure (so you could collapse a long list of H5's to get
to the next H4 more quickly). I have rarely found a site that has
enough headings in a structured hierarchy to make it worth using the
tree view method. I usually just go for the quick "H for next heading".
Headings are a big plus in some blog implementations where there is a
lot of content divided into small sections. For example, the headings used at:
<http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/>;
& <http://blog.wfmu.org>;
Despite the size of these pages, the headings allow me to jump to (&
through) the article headlines in a couple seconds with a few keystrokes.
Other sites like <http://musicthing.blogspot.com>; that don't use
headings are more difficult to navigate. There's no way to tell
(easily) with a screen reader where the next article will begin, so I
have to scroll through the various Permalink & Trackback items at the
end of each story.
For other sites the needs & usage vary. I really like it when a news
site has article pages with the headline as an H1 (although any Hx
would do). This lets me hop past the 87 links to other things that
precede the article that I'm trying to get to.
Also, I can't prove it now, but I could swear that Teoma used
headings for its search result titles (Google doesn't). This gave
Teoma a slight edge, although I still usually prefer Google's
results. But when I went to check it just now, Teoma had dropped the
heading format.
Patrick
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Nov 16 2005 5:40PM
Subject: Re: Should site logos be H# tags?
← Previous message | Next message →
Paul Bohman wrote:
> I would strongly caution against calling semantic markup a "minor
> issue."
And nobody was saying that semantic markup itself was a minor issue.
What *is* an minor issue is this particular aspect of the implementation
of the rather wooly idea of what "proper" semantic markup of the
document structure is, i.e. whether the H1 should be the site title or
not (taking for granted that all levels below that properly reflect the
structure of the rest of the document in a logical and semantic
fashion). And "minor issue" insofar as if an author marks up a site name
as H1 this won't automatically create insurmountable, completely
structure-perverting problems to users.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re
From: Joelle Tegwen
Date: Wed, Nov 16 2005 6:20PM
Subject: Re: Should site logos be H# tags?
← Previous message | Next message →
When we asked our disability person (who uses a screen reader) he said no.
It should be
H1 How to pay a ticket
The H1 should describe the page. Remember that when the page is loaded
the screen reader reads the <title> too so if you have <title> Minnesota
Judicial Branch - 2nd District</title> and then
H1 = Minnesota Judicial Branch
H2 = 2nd District
H3 = How to pay a ticket
They would be read all of that information twice.
(aside from the horrendous tables that we're slowly working away from) you can see how we've done it http://www.youthhood.org
Joelle
Austin, Darrel wrote:
>There's the age-old semantic debate as to what should be considered an
>actual header.
>
>On our current site, we have the site title, the 'sub site' title, and
>then the content title:
>
>Minnesota Judicial Branch
>2nd District
>How to pay a ticket
>Page content
>
>>From a semantics standpoint, this is usually the argued solution:
>
>H1 = Minnesota Judicial Branch
>H2 = 2nd District
>H3 = How to pay a ticket
>
>But from an accessibility standpoint, does that make as much sense? I'm
>not sure how likely it is that people navigate a site/page via reading
>down the headers, so maybe this isn't a major issue. I will have 'skip
>to content' links at the very top as well.
>
>-Darrel
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: Paul Bohman
Date: Wed, Nov 16 2005 7:00PM
Subject: Re: Should site logos be H# tags?
← Previous message | Next message →
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.
--
Paul Bohman
Director of Training Products and Services
WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind)
www.webaim.org
Utah State University
www.usu.edu
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Nov 16 2005 7:40PM
Subject: Re: Should site logos be H# tags?
← Previous message | Next message →
Austin, Darrel wrote:
> Is it annoying to navigate pages via headers and hear the site/subsite
> on each and every page? Or would people prefer to have the H1 be the
> first header of unique content on that page? Or is this just a really
> minor issue?
Personally, I'd say it's a minor issue as long as you're *consistent* -
once you decide that you indeed want your H1 to always be the site name,
stick with it. Provided that you don't try to stuff hundreds of keywords
into that H1 "Widget.com - the home of the best widgets on the web ...
you want a widget? We've got your widget...blah blah" (as the ALT text
for an image of the company logo wrapped in the H1, for instance), I'd
say that if the content that follows is interesting and relevant, users
will be fine with it. There are far more fundamental issues that can
make a user get annoyed and leave your site...
--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re
From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Wed, Nov 16 2005 8:20PM
Subject: Re: Should site logos be H# tags?
← Previous message | Next message →
>
>
>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.
Hope this helps
Josh
Austin, Darrel wrote:
>
>
>
>>Many screen reader users extract headings (say using Jaws)
>>from a page and therefore by scanning which aspects of the
>>page content they may be interested in, can navigate to them
>>quickly, often bypassing the main "site navigation". IMO -
>>Aside from semantic issues, its very useful to use accurate
>>and informative heading titles for this reason.
>>
>>
>
>Right...and hence my question.
>
>Is it annoying to navigate pages via headers and hear the site/subsite
>on each and every page? Or would people prefer to have the H1 be the
>first header of unique content on that page? Or is this just a really
>minor issue?
>
>-Darrel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Wed, Nov 16 2005 10:20PM
Subject: Re: Should site logos be H# tags?
← Previous message | Next message →
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.
>
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Thu, Nov 17 2005 7:40AM
Subject: RE: Should site logos be H# tags?
← Previous message | No next message
> Also, I can't prove it now, but I could swear that Teoma used
> headings for its search result titles (Google doesn't). This
> gave Teoma a slight edge, although I still usually prefer
> Google's results. But when I went to check it just now, Teoma
> had dropped the heading format.
Thanks for all the replies everyone!
A follow-up for Patrick and anyone else that uses screen readers on a
daily basis: Do you prefer that the site name be included as the first
header on each page or is that already implied by the TITLE tag and/or
the fact that you know what site you are at and therefore is annoyingly
redundant? Or, is the consensus that consistency trumps this issue (as
it seems the non-screen-reader-users among us seem to agree).
-Darrel