WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements

[Ramakrishnan Subramanian]

Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Heading order:
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>

Landmark regions:
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
3. Links which open in a new window:
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?

[Gunderson, Jon R]

Ramakrishnan,

There is guidance in using landmarks and headings in the ARIA Authoring Practices 1.1:
https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices-1.1/#aria_landmark

Including an example:
https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices-1.1/examples/landmarks/index.html

Jon


On 2/14/18, 12:22 AM, "Ramakrishnan Subramanian" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Heading order:
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>

Landmark regions:
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
3. Links which open in a new window:
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?


--

Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

[ALAN SMITH]

Ramakrishnan,

I just was starting my day when I saw your email and no one had replied for 8 hours.

Perhaps we are all just getting started?

I was typing a reply when I saw Jon’s reply come in. He provided a link to the landmarks coding which helps you fix your landmarks but he did not answer your questions.

Also, it sounds like you already know the labeling is wrong.

What you have listed are accessibility violations.

People like to hear “enhancement” but they are “violations” or non-conformance issues.

Headings out of proper hierarchical numbering order is a violation of 1.3.1 Info and Relationships
Landmark labeling being duplicated for different information is a violation of 1.3.1 Info and Relationships
Links that open in new windows thus changing the context for the user is a violation of 3.2.2 On Input

I like to use the WCAG 2.0 Quick Reference link as a starting place for all things WCAG 2.0 related.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/

If you need further assistance and do not hear from others, please reach out to me personally.

Alan Smith

From: Ramakrishnan Subramanian
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 1:23 AM
To: w3c-wai-***@w3.org
Subject: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements

Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Heading order:
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>

Landmark regions:
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
3. Links which open in a new window:
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?

[John Cha]

Alan,

I'm not sure I agree with the 3.2.2 categorization. 3.2.2 only applies to
changes of context as a result of changing the settings of a control.
Clicking a link is explicitly called out as* not *being a change of
settings in the Understanding
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/consistent-behavior-unpredictable-change.html>
3.2.2
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/consistent-behavior-unpredictable-change.html>
page:

"Note: This Success Criterion covers changes in context due to changing the
setting of a control. *Clicking on links or tabs in a tab control is
activating the control, not changing the setting of that control*."
(emphasis added)

Regards,
John Cha

Post by Gunderson, Jon R
Ramakrishnan,
I just was starting my day when I saw your email and no one had replied for 8 hours.
Perhaps we are all just getting started?
I was typing a reply when I saw Jon’s reply come in. He provided a link to
the landmarks coding which helps you fix your landmarks but he did not
answer your questions.
Also, it sounds like you already know the labeling is wrong.
What you have listed are accessibility violations.
People like to hear “enhancement” but they are “violations” or
non-conformance issues.
Headings out of proper hierarchical numbering order is a violation of
1.3.1 Info and Relationships
Landmark labeling being duplicated for different information is a
violation of 1.3.1 Info and Relationships
Links that open in new windows thus changing the context for the user is a
violation of 3.2.2 On Input
I like to use the WCAG 2.0 Quick Reference link as a starting place for
all things WCAG 2.0 related.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/
If you need further assistance and do not hear from others, please reach
out to me personally.
Alan Smith
*Sent: *Wednesday, February 14, 2018 1:23 AM
*Subject: *WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements
Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?
--
Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

[ALAN SMITH]

It's found in the advisory for 3.2.2 at G201: Giving users advanced warning
when opening a new window

Post by Ramakrishnan Subramanian
Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?
--
Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

[John Cha]

Right, and since advisory techniques are not required for WCAG conformance,
I think that means that this is not a 3.2.2 violation at least.

Post by ALAN SMITH
It's found in the advisory for 3.2.2 at G201: Giving users advanced
warning when opening a new window
On Feb 14, 2018 1:23 AM, "Ramakrishnan Subramanian" <

Post by Ramakrishnan Subramanian
Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?
--
Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

[Rakesh Paladugula]

<html><head></head><body dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div dir="auto" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div class="ApplePlainTextBody">My thoughts are :<br><br>1. Main heading can be a level 2. No harm in it. Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info &amp; relationships.<br>2. I consider having improper text for labels as violation as per 2.4.6 headings and labels. In your second container the label is Apple but the text is of banana.<br>3. I don’t think it is a violation.<br><br>Thanks &amp; Regards<br>Rakesh<br><blockquote type="cite">On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian &lt;***@gmail.com&gt; wrote:<br><br>Dear Members,<br>I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.<br>I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility<br>related issues mentioned below.<br>Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be<br>helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.<br>Heading order:<br>Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility<br>violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?<br>The first heading level in the page is &lt;h2&gt; sample text &lt;/h2&gt;<br>The next heading level is &lt;h5&gt; sample text &lt;/h5&gt;<br><br>Landmark regions:<br>When there are different content given inside two different aria<br>region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?<br>&lt;div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”&gt;<br>Apple related content goes here<br>&lt;/div&gt;<br>&lt;div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”&gt;<br>Bannana related content goes here<br>&lt;/div&gt;<br>3. Links which open in a new window:<br>When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link<br>which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility<br>violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?<br><br><br>-- <br><br>Thanks and Regards<br>Ramakrishnan<br><br></blockquote><br></div></div></div></body></html>

[Phill Jenkins]

Why is
Having h5 after h2
a violation of 1.3.1?
1.3.1 Info and Relationships: Information, structure, and
relationships conveyed through presentationcan be programmatically
determined or are available in text. (Level A)

1.3.1 doesn't require perfect nesting order - just that it can be
programmatically determined.

There are plently of examples of news type pages that may have a bold
looking headline heading tagged as an <h2> followed in the reading order
by a very small heading, such as "Other Author Articles" tagged as an H5.

What would be wrong with that per the Success Criteria?

The Understanding 1.3.3 says: "The intent of this Success Criterion is to
ensure that information and relationships that are implied by visual or
auditory formatting are preserved when the presentation format changes.
For example, the presentation format changes when the content is read by a
screen reader . . . Sighted users perceive structure and relationships
through various visual cues ? headings are often in a larger, bold font
separated from paragraphs by blank lines; . .
under Additional Techniques (Advisory) for 1.3.1
G141: Organizing a page using headings
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G141 which says: "To
facilitate navigation and understanding of overall document structure,
authors should use headings that are properly nested (e.g., h1 followed by
h2, h2 followed by h2 or h3, h3 followed by h3 or h4, etc.).
Tests
Procedure
2. Check that a heading for each section exists.
Expected Results
Check #2 is true.

Note that
a.) G141 is an advisory techniue,
b.) G141 does not say "shall" or "must",
c.) G141 does not fail if the heading are not nested,
d.) G141 passes if each section has a heading,
e.) advisory techniques are best practices, not examples of failures to
meet a Success Criteria,
f.) Common Failures for SC 1.3.1 does not list an example with incorrectly
nested headings .

On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

Heading order:
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins




On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Heading order:
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>

Landmark regions:
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=?region? aria-label=?apple?>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=?region? aria-label=?apple?>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
3. Links which open in a new window:
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?

[David Best]

This, I believe, illustrates the fine line between WCAG criteria and usability
preferences. Technically, I do not think it is a 1.3.1 violation, but it may
create user confusion, as the screen reader question would be "what am I
missing?". This may occur on dynamic pages, and may not necessarily be under the
control of the web page if third party widgets are used. So, it is really a
question of good design and branding.

David



From: Phill Jenkins [mailto:***@us.ibm.com]
Sent: March 1, 2018 01:30 PM
To: Rakesh Paladugula
Cc: Ramakrishnan Subramanian; w3c-wai-***@w3.org
Subject: Re: Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info &
relationships. - was: WCAG violations or accessibility enhancements



Why is
Having h5 after h2
a violation of 1.3.1?

<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#content-structure-separation-pro
grammatic> 1.3.1 Info and Relationships: Information, structure
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-program
matic.html#structuredef> , and relationships
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-program
matic.html#relationshipsdef> conveyed through presentation
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-program
matic.html#presentationdef> can be programmatically determined
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-program
matic.html#programmaticallydetermineddef> or are available in text. (Level A)

1.3.1 doesn't require perfect nesting order - just that it can be
programmatically determined.

There are plently of examples of news type pages that may have a bold looking
headline heading tagged as an <h2> followed in the reading order by a very small
heading, such as "Other Author Articles" tagged as an H5.
What would be wrong with that per the Success Criteria?

The
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-program
matic.html> Understanding 1.3.3 says: "The intent of this Success Criterion is
to ensure that information and relationships that are implied by visual or
auditory formatting are preserved when the presentation format changes. For
example, the presentation format changes when the content is read by a screen
reader . . . Sighted users perceive structure and relationships through various
visual cues - headings are often in a larger, bold font separated from
paragraphs by blank lines; . .
under Additional Techniques (Advisory) for 1.3.1
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G141> G141: Organizing a
page using headings
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G141which says: "To
facilitate navigation and understanding of overall document structure, authors
should use headings that are properly nested (e.g., h1 followed by h2, h2
followed by h2 or h3, h3 followed by h3 or h4, etc.).
Tests
Procedure

2. Check that a heading for each section exists.


Expected Results

* Check #2 is true.

Note that
a.) G141 is an advisory techniue,
b.) G141 does not say "shall" or "must",
c.) G141 does not fail if the heading are not nested,
d.) G141 passes if each section has a heading,
e.) advisory techniques are best practices, not examples of failures to meet a
Success Criteria,
f.) Common Failures for SC 1.3.1 does not list an example with incorrectly
nested headings .


On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

Heading order:
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins




On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Heading order:
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>

Landmark regions:
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role="region" aria-label="apple">
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role="region" aria-label="apple">
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
3. Links which open in a new window:
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?

[Claudio Luis Vera]

There's a core UX problem with all document software that's leading to this
header issue. When authors create content in a program like Word, they're
largely selecting headers to set up typographical fenceposts in their
documents. For someone who has no knowledge of accessibility, a choice of
header has everything to do with font size, color, boldness, and paragraph
spacing. They're also making these choices based on what they feel is the
appropriate contrast and emphasis with the underlying text -- much as a
person speaking would modulate the volume of their voice. As a visual
designer, I myself have skipped header levels for years before becoming
aware of their importance to users of screen readers.

The problem lies in that authoring tools by default have a 1:1 match
between the typographic style and a single header level. To make an
oversize h3 look like an h5, well, you have to use an h5 and skip header
levels.
A more conscious or experienced user might create a template with
additional h3 styles that look like an h4 or h5, and give them names like
Header 3 Large, Header 3 Medium, and Header 3 Small.

A better approach may be to separate the semantics of the header structure
from type choices by having the user flag something as a header, then
decide where it is to be nested in an outline panel -- and then choose font
sizes separately. This would prevent the authors from having headers that
are orphaned from their parents.

Post by David Best
This, I believe, illustrates the fine line between WCAG criteria and
usability preferences. Technically, I do not think it is a 1.3.1 violation,
but it may create user confusion, as the screen reader question would be
"what am I missing?". This may occur on dynamic pages, and may not
necessarily be under the control of the web page if third party widgets are
used. So, it is really a question of good design and branding.
David
*Sent:* March 1, 2018 01:30 PM
*To:* Rakesh Paladugula
*Subject:* Re: Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info &
relationships. - was: WCAG violations or accessibility enhancements
Why is
Having h5 after h2
a violation of 1.3.1?
*1.3.1*
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#content-structure-separation-programmatic>* Info
and Relationships:* Information, structure
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#structuredef>,
and relationships
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#relationshipsdef> conveyed
through presentation
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#presentationdef>can
be programmatically determined
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#programmaticallydetermineddef> or
are available in text. (Level A)
1.3.1 doesn't require perfect nesting order - just that it can be
programmatically determined.
There are plently of examples of news type pages that may have a bold
looking headline heading tagged as an <h2> followed in the reading order by
a very small heading, such as "Other Author Articles" tagged as an H5.
What would be wrong with that per the Success Criteria?
The Understanding 1.3.3
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html>
says: "The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that information
and relationships that are implied by visual or auditory formatting are
preserved when the presentation format changes. For example, the
presentation format changes when the content is read by a screen reader . .
. Sighted users perceive structure and relationships through various visual
cues — headings are often in a larger, bold font separated from paragraphs
by blank lines; . .
under *Additional Techniques (Advisory) for 1.3.1*
G141: Organizing a page using headings
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G141>
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G141which says: "To
facilitate navigation and understanding of overall document structure,
authors should use headings that are properly nested (e.g., h1 followed by
h2, h2 followed by h2 or h3, h3 followed by h3 or h4, etc.).
Tests
*Procedure*
2. Check that a heading for each section exists.
*Expected Results*
- Check #2 is true.
Note that
a.) G141 is an advisory techniue,
b.) G141 does not say "shall" or "must",
c.) G141 does not fail if the heading are not nested,
d.) G141 passes if each section has a heading,
e.) advisory techniques are best practices, not examples of failures to
meet a Success Criteria,
f.) Common Failures for SC 1.3.1 does not list an example with incorrectly
nested headings .
On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?
--
Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

[Glenda Sims]

Crazy idea o' the week. This problem of heading structure never happens to
us in ordered lists..because we let the browsers render the list numbers.
Wouldn't it be super cool if we could have a similar construct in html for
headings.

I've only had one cup o' coffee....so this may not be the best idea I ever
had...

Example of dynamic heading structure
<oh> Glenda's make believe ordered headings
<hi> Glenda's make believe heading item </hi>
<oh>
<hi> Another make believe heading item </hi>
<!--#include file="includewithheading.html" -->
<hi>The last heading in this example</hi>
<!-- end of include -->
</oh>
</oh>

And this would render as if I had coded it the "old fashioned way":

<h1>Glenda's make believe heading item</h1>
<h2>Another make believe heading item<h2>
<h2>The last heading in this example</h2>

Going to get a second cup o' coffee now...
Goodwitch

glenda sims | team a11y lead | deque.com | 512.963.3773
*web for everyone. web on everything.* - w3 goals

[image: IAAP International Association of Accessibility Professionals:
Certified Professional in Accessibility Core Competencies (CPACC)]
<http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification>

Post by Claudio Luis Vera
There's a core UX problem with all document software that's leading to
this header issue. When authors create content in a program like Word,
they're largely selecting headers to set up typographical fenceposts in
their documents. For someone who has no knowledge of accessibility, a
choice of header has everything to do with font size, color, boldness, and
paragraph spacing. They're also making these choices based on what they
feel is the appropriate contrast and emphasis with the underlying text --
much as a person speaking would modulate the volume of their voice. As a
visual designer, I myself have skipped header levels for years before
becoming aware of their importance to users of screen readers.
The problem lies in that authoring tools by default have a 1:1 match
between the typographic style and a single header level. To make an
oversize h3 look like an h5, well, you have to use an h5 and skip header
levels.
A more conscious or experienced user might create a template with
additional h3 styles that look like an h4 or h5, and give them names like
Header 3 Large, Header 3 Medium, and Header 3 Small.
A better approach may be to separate the semantics of the header structure
from type choices by having the user flag something as a header, then
decide where it is to be nested in an outline panel -- and then choose font
sizes separately. This would prevent the authors from having headers that
are orphaned from their parents.

Post by David Best
This, I believe, illustrates the fine line between WCAG criteria and
usability preferences. Technically, I do not think it is a 1.3.1 violation,
but it may create user confusion, as the screen reader question would be
"what am I missing?". This may occur on dynamic pages, and may not
necessarily be under the control of the web page if third party widgets are
used. So, it is really a question of good design and branding.
David
*Sent:* March 1, 2018 01:30 PM
*To:* Rakesh Paladugula
*Subject:* Re: Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info &
relationships. - was: WCAG violations or accessibility enhancements
Why is
Having h5 after h2
a violation of 1.3.1?
*1.3.1*
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#content-structure-separation-programmatic>* Info
and Relationships:* Information, structure
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#structuredef>,
and relationships
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#relationshipsdef> conveyed
through presentation
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#presentationdef>can
be programmatically determined
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#programmaticallydetermineddef> or
are available in text. (Level A)
1.3.1 doesn't require perfect nesting order - just that it can be
programmatically determined.
There are plently of examples of news type pages that may have a bold
looking headline heading tagged as an <h2> followed in the reading order by
a very small heading, such as "Other Author Articles" tagged as an H5.
What would be wrong with that per the Success Criteria?
The Understanding 1.3.3
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html>
says: "The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that
information and relationships that are implied by visual or auditory
formatting are preserved when the presentation format changes. For example,
the presentation format changes when the content is read by a screen reader
. . . Sighted users perceive structure and relationships through various
visual cues — headings are often in a larger, bold font separated from
paragraphs by blank lines; . .
under *Additional Techniques (Advisory) for 1.3.1*
G141: Organizing a page using headings
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G141>
"To facilitate navigation and understanding of overall document structure,
authors should use headings that are properly nested (e.g., h1 followed by
h2, h2 followed by h2 or h3, h3 followed by h3 or h4, etc.).
Tests
*Procedure*
2. Check that a heading for each section exists.
*Expected Results*
- Check #2 is true.
Note that
a.) G141 is an advisory techniue,
b.) G141 does not say "shall" or "must",
c.) G141 does not fail if the heading are not nested,
d.) G141 passes if each section has a heading,
e.) advisory techniques are best practices, not examples of failures to
meet a Success Criteria,
f.) Common Failures for SC 1.3.1 does not list an example with
incorrectly nested headings .
On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?
--
Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

--
User Experience | Information Architecture | Accessibility
simple-theory.com
[phone] <(954)%20417-4188>

[Claudio Luis Vera]

Right on, Glenda! That would be one way to have the header level set itself
automatically, separate from typography.

Post by Glenda Sims
Crazy idea o' the week. This problem of heading structure never happens
to us in ordered lists..because we let the browsers render the list
numbers. Wouldn't it be super cool if we could have a similar construct in
html for headings.
I've only had one cup o' coffee....so this may not be the best idea I ever
had...
Example of dynamic heading structure
<oh> Glenda's make believe ordered headings
<hi> Glenda's make believe heading item </hi>
<oh>
<hi> Another make believe heading item </hi>
<!--#include file="includewithheading.html" -->
<hi>The last heading in this example</hi>
<!-- end of include -->
</oh>
</oh>
<h1>Glenda's make believe heading item</h1>
<h2>Another make believe heading item<h2>
<h2>The last heading in this example</h2>
Going to get a second cup o' coffee now...
Goodwitch
glenda sims | team a11y lead | deque.com | 512.963.3773
<(512)%20963-3773>
*web for everyone. web on everything.* - w3 goals
Certified Professional in Accessibility Core Competencies (CPACC)]
<http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification>
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Claudio Luis Vera <

Post by Claudio Luis Vera
There's a core UX problem with all document software that's leading to
this header issue. When authors create content in a program like Word,
they're largely selecting headers to set up typographical fenceposts in
their documents. For someone who has no knowledge of accessibility, a
choice of header has everything to do with font size, color, boldness, and
paragraph spacing. They're also making these choices based on what they
feel is the appropriate contrast and emphasis with the underlying text --
much as a person speaking would modulate the volume of their voice. As a
visual designer, I myself have skipped header levels for years before
becoming aware of their importance to users of screen readers.
The problem lies in that authoring tools by default have a 1:1 match
between the typographic style and a single header level. To make an
oversize h3 look like an h5, well, you have to use an h5 and skip header
levels.
A more conscious or experienced user might create a template with
additional h3 styles that look like an h4 or h5, and give them names like
Header 3 Large, Header 3 Medium, and Header 3 Small.
A better approach may be to separate the semantics of the header
structure from type choices by having the user flag something as a header,
then decide where it is to be nested in an outline panel -- and then choose
font sizes separately. This would prevent the authors from having headers
that are orphaned from their parents.

Post by David Best
This, I believe, illustrates the fine line between WCAG criteria and
usability preferences. Technically, I do not think it is a 1.3.1 violation,
but it may create user confusion, as the screen reader question would be
"what am I missing?". This may occur on dynamic pages, and may not
necessarily be under the control of the web page if third party widgets are
used. So, it is really a question of good design and branding.
David
*Sent:* March 1, 2018 01:30 PM
*To:* Rakesh Paladugula
*Subject:* Re: Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info &
relationships. - was: WCAG violations or accessibility enhancements
Why is
Having h5 after h2
a violation of 1.3.1?
*1.3.1*
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#content-structure-separation-programmatic>* Info
and Relationships:* Information, structure
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#structuredef>,
and relationships
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#relationshipsdef> conveyed
through presentation
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#presentationdef>can
be programmatically determined
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#programmaticallydetermineddef> or
are available in text. (Level A)
1.3.1 doesn't require perfect nesting order - just that it can be
programmatically determined.
There are plently of examples of news type pages that may have a bold
looking headline heading tagged as an <h2> followed in the reading order by
a very small heading, such as "Other Author Articles" tagged as an H5.
What would be wrong with that per the Success Criteria?
The Understanding 1.3.3
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html>
says: "The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that
information and relationships that are implied by visual or auditory
formatting are preserved when the presentation format changes. For example,
the presentation format changes when the content is read by a screen reader
. . . Sighted users perceive structure and relationships through various
visual cues — headings are often in a larger, bold font separated from
paragraphs by blank lines; . .
under *Additional Techniques (Advisory) for 1.3.1*
G141: Organizing a page using headings
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G141>
"To facilitate navigation and understanding of overall document structure,
authors should use headings that are properly nested (e.g., h1 followed by
h2, h2 followed by h2 or h3, h3 followed by h3 or h4, etc.).
Tests
*Procedure*
2. Check that a heading for each section exists.
*Expected Results*
- Check #2 is true.
Note that
a.) G141 is an advisory techniue,
b.) G141 does not say "shall" or "must",
c.) G141 does not fail if the heading are not nested,
d.) G141 passes if each section has a heading,
e.) advisory techniques are best practices, not examples of failures to
meet a Success Criteria,
f.) Common Failures for SC 1.3.1 does not list an example with
incorrectly nested headings .
On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?
--
Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

--
User Experience | Information Architecture | Accessibility
simple-theory.com
[phone] <(954)%20417-4188>

[Denis Boudreau]

Oh there. Oh well. Patrick beat me to it. ;p


/Denis


--
Denis Boudreau
» ***@gmail.com
» 514-730-9168

Interesting, but it painfully reminds me of the whole document outline
algorithm that floated around for about 6 or 7 years with HTML5, until it
http://html5doctor.com/computer-says-no-to-html5-document-outline/.
/Denis
--
Denis Boudreau
» 514-730-9168 <(514)%20730-9168>
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:55 AM, Claudio Luis Vera <

Post by Claudio Luis Vera
Right on, Glenda! That would be one way to have the header level set
itself automatically, separate from typography.

Post by Glenda Sims
Crazy idea o' the week. This problem of heading structure never happens
to us in ordered lists..because we let the browsers render the list
numbers. Wouldn't it be super cool if we could have a similar construct in
html for headings.
I've only had one cup o' coffee....so this may not be the best idea I
ever had...
Example of dynamic heading structure
<oh> Glenda's make believe ordered headings
<hi> Glenda's make believe heading item </hi>
<oh>
<hi> Another make believe heading item </hi>
<!--#include file="includewithheading.html" -->
<hi>The last heading in this example</hi>
<!-- end of include -->
</oh>
</oh>
<h1>Glenda's make believe heading item</h1>
<h2>Another make believe heading item<h2>
<h2>The last heading in this example</h2>
Going to get a second cup o' coffee now...
Goodwitch
glenda sims | team a11y lead | deque.com | 512.963.3773
<(512)%20963-3773>
*web for everyone. web on everything.* - w3 goals
Certified Professional in Accessibility Core Competencies (CPACC)]
<http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification>
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Claudio Luis Vera <

Post by Claudio Luis Vera
There's a core UX problem with all document software that's leading to
this header issue. When authors create content in a program like Word,
they're largely selecting headers to set up typographical fenceposts in
their documents. For someone who has no knowledge of accessibility, a
choice of header has everything to do with font size, color, boldness, and
paragraph spacing. They're also making these choices based on what they
feel is the appropriate contrast and emphasis with the underlying text --
much as a person speaking would modulate the volume of their voice. As a
visual designer, I myself have skipped header levels for years before
becoming aware of their importance to users of screen readers.
The problem lies in that authoring tools by default have a 1:1 match
between the typographic style and a single header level. To make an
oversize h3 look like an h5, well, you have to use an h5 and skip
header levels.
A more conscious or experienced user might create a template with
additional h3 styles that look like an h4 or h5, and give them names like
Header 3 Large, Header 3 Medium, and Header 3 Small.
A better approach may be to separate the semantics of the header
structure from type choices by having the user flag something as a header,
then decide where it is to be nested in an outline panel -- and then choose
font sizes separately. This would prevent the authors from having headers
that are orphaned from their parents.

Post by David Best
This, I believe, illustrates the fine line between WCAG criteria and
usability preferences. Technically, I do not think it is a 1.3.1 violation,
but it may create user confusion, as the screen reader question would be
"what am I missing?". This may occur on dynamic pages, and may not
necessarily be under the control of the web page if third party widgets are
used. So, it is really a question of good design and branding.
David
*Sent:* March 1, 2018 01:30 PM
*To:* Rakesh Paladugula
*Subject:* Re: Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info &
relationships. - was: WCAG violations or accessibility enhancements
Why is
Having h5 after h2
a violation of 1.3.1?
*1.3.1*
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#content-structure-separation-programmatic>* Info
and Relationships:* Information, structure
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#structuredef>,
and relationships
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#relationshipsdef> conveyed
through presentation
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#presentationdef>can
be programmatically determined
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#programmaticallydetermineddef> or
are available in text. (Level A)
1.3.1 doesn't require perfect nesting order - just that it can be
programmatically determined.
There are plently of examples of news type pages that may have a bold
looking headline heading tagged as an <h2> followed in the reading order by
a very small heading, such as "Other Author Articles" tagged as an H5.
What would be wrong with that per the Success Criteria?
The Understanding 1.3.3
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html>
says: "The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that
information and relationships that are implied by visual or auditory
formatting are preserved when the presentation format changes. For example,
the presentation format changes when the content is read by a screen reader
. . . Sighted users perceive structure and relationships through various
visual cues — headings are often in a larger, bold font separated from
paragraphs by blank lines; . .
under *Additional Techniques (Advisory) for 1.3.1*
G141: Organizing a page using headings
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G141>
"To facilitate navigation and understanding of overall document structure,
authors should use headings that are properly nested (e.g., h1 followed by
h2, h2 followed by h2 or h3, h3 followed by h3 or h4, etc.).
Tests
*Procedure*
2. Check that a heading for each section exists.
*Expected Results*
- Check #2 is true.
Note that
a.) G141 is an advisory techniue,
b.) G141 does not say "shall" or "must",
c.) G141 does not fail if the heading are not nested,
d.) G141 passes if each section has a heading,
e.) advisory techniques are best practices, not examples of failures
to meet a Success Criteria,
f.) Common Failures for SC 1.3.1 does not list an example with
incorrectly nested headings .
On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?
--
Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

--
User Experience | Information Architecture | Accessibility
simple-theory.com
[phone] <(954)%20417-4188>

--
User Experience | Information Architecture | Accessibility
simple-theory.com
[phone] <(954)%20417-4188>

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Crazy idea o' the week.  This problem of heading structure never happens
to us in ordered lists..because we let the browsers render the list
numbers.  Wouldn't it be super cool if we could have a similar construct
in html for headings.
I've only had one cup o' coffee....so this may not be the best idea I
ever had...
Example of dynamic heading structure
<oh>  Glenda's make believe ordered headings
   <hi>  Glenda's make believe heading item </hi>
   <oh>
        <hi> Another make believe heading item </hi>
<!--#include file="includewithheading.html" -->
        <hi>The last heading in this example</hi>
<!-- end of include -->
    </oh>
</oh>

We could call it an "outline algorithm" perhaps. And then wait for
browsers to actually implement it in a meaningful way too?

P

[Claudio Luis Vera]

In HTML and CSS, you can separate semantic header level from class quite
easily, and it's fairly straightforward to do in a few theming frameworks
like Bootstrap.

For example, you could declare a style for a fourth-level header:

h4 {
color: #666;
font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif;
font-size: 18px;
font-weight: 100;
}

Then you could add a matching class to it:

h4, .h4 {
color: #666;
font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif;
font-size: 18px;
font-weight: 100;
}

Then you could declare a second-level header that borrows the type styles
from the fourth-level header:

<h2 class="h4">My smaller-looking header</h2>

It's a shame this capability doesn't exist by default for document styles
in Word or in authoring widgets like CKEditor.

---
Claudio

Post by Patrick H. Lauke

Post by Glenda Sims
Crazy idea o' the week. This problem of heading structure never happens
to us in ordered lists..because we let the browsers render the list
numbers. Wouldn't it be super cool if we could have a similar construct in
html for headings.
I've only had one cup o' coffee....so this may not be the best idea I
ever had...
Example of dynamic heading structure
<oh> Glenda's make believe ordered headings
<hi> Glenda's make believe heading item </hi>
<oh>
<hi> Another make believe heading item </hi>
<!--#include file="includewithheading.html" -->
<hi>The last heading in this example</hi>
<!-- end of include -->
</oh>
</oh>

We could call it an "outline algorithm" perhaps. And then wait for
browsers to actually implement it in a meaningful way too?
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com

[Pyatt, Elizabeth J]

Just some comments

1. Although I agree that maintaining proper hierarchical structure is important, the concept is extremely difficult for sighted users to understand. Two things that can help

a. In Word and other word processors, the idea that heading styles can be used to build an automatic table of contents is very popular among people who attend accessibility sessions. It’s an application that sighted users can understand.

b. I’ve also used screen captures from screen readers like VoiceOver to show how lists of headings are used in those tools.
http://sites.psu.edu/accessibility/headings/#sem

Note: You will see that I do have an H2 (generic site links) before an H1 (the actual page title). It’s from an older version of our site, but we do struggle with some ambiguous interpretations of heading structure. However, I would agree that a jump from H2 to H5 is probably due to ill constructed semantics.

2. IMO - it also doesn’t help that in most default settings of the the browser, the font size of H5 and H6 is SMALLER than the body text. I did tend to think of those tags as footers rather than headings until I understood the semantics.

For sighted users, smaller text does not usually equal “heading”, especially in the main content. It’s not surprising to me that these tags are so misused.

3. BUT if a Web page needs more levels of headings than below H4 in the main content, it may be too long…

My two cents
Elizabeth



Elizabeth J. Pyatt, Ph.D.
Accessibility IT Consultant
Teaching and Learning with Technology
Penn State University
***@psu.edu, [phone] or [phone] (Main Office)

The 300 Building, 112
304 West College Avenue
University Park, PA 16802
http://accessibili

[Jonathan Avila]

We could call it an "outline algorithm" perhaps. And then wait for browsers to actually implement it in a meaningful way too?

Yes, too bad this wasn't sent on February 2nd -- perhaps the second time around is a charm and we'll also be better piano players.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:***@splintered.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 9:59 AM
To: w3c-wai-***@w3.org
Subject: Re: Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships. - was: WCAG violations or accessibility enhancements

Crazy idea o' the week.  This problem of heading structure never
happens to us in ordered lists..because we let the browsers render the
list numbers.  Wouldn't it be super cool if we could have a similar
construct in html for headings.
I've only had one cup o' coffee....so this may not be the best idea I
ever had...
Example of dynamic heading structure
<oh>  Glenda's make believe ordered headings
   <hi>  Glenda's make believe heading item </hi>
   <oh>
        <hi> Another make believe heading item </hi> <!--#include
file="includewithheading.html" -->
        <hi>The last heading in this example</hi>
<!-- end of include -->
    </oh>
</oh>

We could call it an "outline algorithm" perhaps. And then wait for browsers to actually implement it in a meaningful way too?

P

[Harry Loots]

While i agree that skipping levels is not a WCAG violation, it should be
emphasised that this will cause a usability problem for screenreader users.
E.g. if a screenreader user cycles through the headings (h1, h2's then
h3's, etc. ) and the screenreader reported nothing for a next level of
heading (i.e., h3 and h4 skipped), then the user will most likely stop
cycling through headings, having assumed there were no further headings.
In this case the screenreader user will not be presented with an
*equivalent* 'picture' of the page as we, the sighted user will perceive
it.
If it's not an explicit rule of WCAG, then it's high time we made it a
rule!

Kindest regards
Harry

Post by Patrick H. Lauke

Post by Patrick H. Lauke
We could call it an "outline algorithm" perhaps. And then wait for

browsers to actually implement it in a meaningful way too?
Yes, too bad this wasn't sent on February 2nd -- perhaps the second time
around is a charm and we'll also be better piano players.
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info &
relationships. - was: WCAG violations or accessibility enhancements

Post by Patrick H. Lauke
Crazy idea o' the week. This problem of heading structure never
happens to us in ordered lists..because we let the browsers render the
list numbers. Wouldn't it be super cool if we could have a similar
construct in html for headings.
I've only had one cup o' coffee....so this may not be the best idea I
ever had...
Example of dynamic heading structure
<oh> Glenda's make believe ordered headings
<hi> Glenda's make believe heading item </hi>
<oh>
<hi> Another make believe heading item </hi> <!--#include
file="includewithheading.html" -->
<hi>The last heading in this example</hi>
<!-- end of include -->
</oh>
</oh>

We could call it an "outline algorithm" perhaps. And then wait for
browsers to actually implement it in a meaningful way too?
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com

[Olaf Drümmer]

While i agree that skipping levels is not a WCAG violation, it should be emphasised that this will cause a usability problem for screenreader users.

It is only coming across as a usability issue because screen reader implementations chose a certain approach for navigation through a page or document using 'headings' as landmarks.

As it would not be too difficult for a screen reader implementation to figure out that a 'heading level has been skipped' (e.g. an h3 followed by h5):
- it could still offer navigation on the next lower available level (in this case h5, not h4) and make it more probable that a user relying on this mode of page/document navigation does not miss out on a part of the page/document because of that skipped heading level
- a screen reader implementation could also indicate in some fashion that in such a situation a heading level 'is missing'

It is a fairy tale that sighted users are seeing a clear structure of heading levels. All sighted users usually see is relative prominence of headings (exception: headings are numbered according to their level). What I am describing above is based on a concept of 'relative heading level'. Following my proposal would provide equal / same quality access to screen reader users as it exists for sighted users.

Furthermore, it is easier to adjust a few screen reader implementations (and get the job done forever) than to convince the world out there that an h3 followed by an h5 is a bad thing (and to be honest: there'd be many more urgent issues to address than this one...).

My 2 cents.

Olaf

PS: ...and as an aside:
PDF/UA-1 (the ISO standard for accessible tagged PDFs) decided to prohibit skipped heading levels. For a number of reasons this provision will most likely be removed from PDF/UA-2 (the next version of PDF/UA, currently being worked on in ISO). One of the reasons is that there are documents out in the world that intentionally and rightfully skip heading levels. For example, in some government agencies in Germany, certain types of long documents have a clearly designed heading level structure where in some cases a heading level has to be skipped (because at that level does not apply). As the rules for these documents are very old already, and as nobody ever hseems to have had a real problem with this, it is an undue burden for them to adjust their approach. As they wish to be conforming with PDF/UA-1 they are currently inserting a fake heading that essentially says 'heading intentionally left empty'. Now, once I see a hack like this, all the alarm bells ring to tell me there probably is a conceptual issue... (in this case in PDF/UA-1, with its prohibition of skipped heading levels)

While i agree that skipping levels is not a WCAG violation, it should be emphasised that this will cause a usability problem for screenreader users.
E.g. if a screenreader user cycles through the headings (h1, h2's then h3's, etc. ) and the screenreader reported nothing for a next level of heading (i.e., h3 and h4 skipped), then the user will most likely stop cycling through headings, having assumed there were no further headings.
In this case the screenreader user will not be presented with an equivalent 'picture' of the page as we, the sighted user will perceive it.
If it's not an explicit rule of WCAG, then it's high time we made it a rule!
Kindest regards
Harry

We could call it an "outline algorithm" perhaps. And then wait for browsers to actually implement it in a meaningful way too?

Yes, too bad this wasn't sent on February 2nd -- perhaps the second time around is a charm and we'll also be better piano players.
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships. - was: WCAG violations or accessibility enhancements

Crazy idea o' the week. This problem of heading structure never
happens to us in ordered lists..because we let the browsers render the
list numbers. Wouldn't it be super cool if we could have a similar
construct in html for headings.
I've only had one cup o' coffee....so this may not be the best idea I
ever had...
Example of dynamic heading structure
<oh> Glenda's make believe ordered headings
<hi> Glenda's make believe heading item </hi>
<oh>
<hi> Another make believe heading item </hi> <!--#include
file="includewithheading.html" -->
<hi>The last heading in this example</hi>
<!-- end of include -->
</oh>
</oh>

We could call it an "outline algorithm" perhaps. And then wait for browsers to actually implement it in a meaningful way too?
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk <http://www.splintered.co.uk/> | https://github.com/patrickhlauke <https://github.com/patrickhlauke> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ <http://flickr.com/photos/redux/> | http://redux.deviantart.com <http://redux.deviantart.com/>

[Claudio Luis Vera]

I'm with Olaf in that the path of least resistance is to make screen
readers robust enough to correctly interpret orphaned headers when there
are jumps in the header order.

Here are the other two alternatives:

1) Convince the makers of Word, Acrobat, InDesign and every other authoring
tool to check proper header structure and not allow users to save their
work unless proper semantic structure is achieved.

2) Train every user of every authoring tool and convince them of the
life-or-death importance of proper semantic header order for use cases they
will likely never experience themselves.

It may not be fair, but these two alternatives are little like boiling the
ocean. Good luck with that!

Claudio

Post by Harry Loots
While i agree that skipping levels is not a WCAG violation, it should be
emphasised that this will cause a usability problem for screenreader users.
It is only coming across as a usability issue because screen reader
implementations chose a certain approach for navigation through a page or
document using 'headings' as landmarks.
As it would not be too difficult for a screen reader implementation to
figure out that a 'heading level has been skipped' (e.g. an h3 followed by
- it could still offer navigation on the next lower available level (in
this case h5, not h4) and make it more probable that a user relying on this
mode of page/document navigation does not miss out on a part of the
page/document because of that skipped heading level
- a screen reader implementation could also indicate in some fashion that
in such a situation a heading level 'is missing'
It is a fairy tale that sighted users are seeing a clear structure of
heading levels. All sighted users usually see is relative prominence of
headings (exception: headings are numbered according to their level). What
I am describing above is based on a concept of 'relative heading level'.
Following my proposal would provide equal / same quality access to screen
reader users as it exists for sighted users.
Furthermore, it is easier to adjust a few screen reader implementations
(and get the job done forever) than to convince the world out there that
an h3 followed by an h5 is a bad thing (and to be honest: there'd be many
more urgent issues to address than this one...).
My 2 cents.
Olaf
PDF/UA-1 (the ISO standard for accessible tagged PDFs) decided to prohibit
skipped heading levels. For a number of reasons this provision will most
likely be removed from PDF/UA-2 (the next version of PDF/UA, currently
being worked on in ISO). One of the reasons is that there are documents out
in the world that intentionally and rightfully skip heading levels. For
example, in some government agencies in Germany, certain types of long
documents have a clearly designed heading level structure where in some
cases a heading level has to be skipped (because at that level does not
apply). As the rules for these documents are very old already, and as
nobody ever hseems to have had a real problem with this, it is an undue
burden for them to adjust their approach. As they wish to be conforming
with PDF/UA-1 they are currently inserting a fake heading that essentially
says 'heading intentionally left empty'. Now, once I see a hack like this,
all the alarm bells ring to tell me there probably is a conceptual issue...
(in this case in PDF/UA-1, with its prohibition of skipped heading levels)
While i agree that skipping levels is not a WCAG violation, it should be
emphasised that this will cause a usability problem for screenreader users.
E.g. if a screenreader user cycles through the headings (h1, h2's then
h3's, etc. ) and the screenreader reported nothing for a next level of
heading (i.e., h3 and h4 skipped), then the user will most likely stop
cycling through headings, having assumed there were no further headings.
In this case the screenreader user will not be presented with an
*equivalent* 'picture' of the page as we, the sighted user will perceive
it.
If it's not an explicit rule of WCAG, then it's high time we made it a rule!
Kindest regards
Harry

Post by Patrick H. Lauke

Post by Patrick H. Lauke
We could call it an "outline algorithm" perhaps. And then wait for

browsers to actually implement it in a meaningful way too?
Yes, too bad this wasn't sent on February 2nd -- perhaps the second time
around is a charm and we'll also be better piano players.
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info &
relationships. - was: WCAG violations or accessibility enhancements

Post by Patrick H. Lauke
Crazy idea o' the week. This problem of heading structure never
happens to us in ordered lists..because we let the browsers render the
list numbers. Wouldn't it be super cool if we could have a similar
construct in html for headings.
I've only had one cup o' coffee....so this may not be the best idea I
ever had...
Example of dynamic heading structure
<oh> Glenda's make believe ordered headings
<hi> Glenda's make believe heading item </hi>
<oh>
<hi> Another make believe heading item </hi> <!--#include
file="includewithheading.html" -->
<hi>The last heading in this example</hi>
<!-- end of include -->
</oh>
</oh>

We could call it an "outline algorithm" perhaps. And then wait for
browsers to actually implement it in a meaningful way too?
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com

[Steve Faulkner]

Post by Phill Jenkins
There are plently of examples of news type pages that may have a bold

looking headline heading tagged >as an <h2> followed in the reading order
by a very small heading, such as "Other Author Articles" tagged >as an
H5.

I suggest this is using the default visual styles of heading elements
instead of thinking about what the headings semantics mean. There is no
definitive relationship between heading style and level.

There is no good reason why these could not be marked up as h2 then h3
styled as desired.

--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>

Post by Phill Jenkins
Why is
Having h5 after h2
a violation of 1.3.1?
*1.3.1*
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#content-structure-separation-programmatic>* Info
and Relationships:* Information, structure
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#structuredef>,
and relationships
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#relationshipsdef> conveyed
through presentation
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#presentationdef>can
be programmatically determined
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#programmaticallydetermineddef> or
are available in text. (Level A)
1.3.1 doesn't require perfect nesting order - just that it can be
programmatically determined.
There are plently of examples of news type pages that may have a bold
looking headline heading tagged as an <h2> followed in the reading order by
a very small heading, such as "Other Author Articles" tagged as an H5.
What would be wrong with that per the Success Criteria?
The Understanding 1.3.3
<https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html>
says: "The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that information
and relationships that are implied by visual or auditory formatting are
preserved when the presentation format changes. For example, the
presentation format changes when the content is read by a screen reader . .
. Sighted users perceive structure and relationships through various visual
cues — headings are often in a larger, bold font separated from paragraphs
by blank lines; . .
under *Additional Techniques (Advisory) for 1.3.1*
G141: Organizing a page using headings
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G141>
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G141which says: "To
facilitate navigation and understanding of overall document structure,
authors should use headings that are properly nested (e.g., h1 followed by
h2, h2 followed by h2 or h3, h3 followed by h3 or h4, etc.).
Tests
*Procedure*
2. Check that a heading for each section exists.
*Expected Results*
- Check #2 is true.
Note that
a.) G141 is an advisory techniue,
b.) G141 does not say "shall" or "must",
c.) G141 does not fail if the heading are not nested,
d.) G141 passes if each section has a heading,
e.) advisory techniques are best practices, not examples of failures to
meet a Success Criteria,
f.) Common Failures for SC 1.3.1 does not list an example with incorrectly
nested headings .
On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?
--
Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

[Katie Haritos-Shea]

Hello,

Phill Jenkins is correct concerning the headings. WCAG 2.0 does not
specifically require headings be nested.

And yes, this is the right place to post this kind of question on WCAG
conformance ....:-)

** katie **

*Katie Haritos-Shea*
*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect *

*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS = *
*CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>

*Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* ****@gmail.com
<***@gmail.com>* *| **Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.

Post by Rakesh Paladugula
1. Main heading can be a level 2. No harm in it. Having h5 after h2 is a
violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships.
2. I consider having improper text for labels as violation as per 2.4.6
headings and labels. In your second container the label is Apple but the
text is of banana.
3. I don’t think it is a violation.
Thanks & Regards
Rakesh
On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?
--
Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

[ALAN SMITH]

Well, I’ll be the first to push back on this on behalf of the disabled and not the designer.

I’ve always said we can make are web pages technically accessible by the letter of the guidelines but they may still not be accessible to those who need them to be so.

If you are coding your accessibility for designers, then you can have h1 followed by h5.
If you are coding your accessibility for blind users, then follow the proper hierarchical order.

You will have a better website and you won’t have to manually review each suggested violation of this out of order heading structure by every automated testing tool which will flag this as a potential violation.

You can always set a font value with class if your designers need a certain “look” for your text on the page.

Think of how you decide to code for accessibility makes a disabled person - and in this case a blind person - feel when they use your site.

Alan Smith

From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:41 PM
To: Rakesh Paladugula
Cc: Ramakrishnan Subramanian; WAI Interest Group
Subject: Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements

Hello,

Phill Jenkins is correct concerning the headings. WCAG 2.0 does not specifically require headings be nested.

And yes, this is the right place to post this kind of question on WCAG conformance ....:-)


* katie * 
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect 
WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP CPACC+WAS = CPWA
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ***@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to dictate where we are going.

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Rakesh Paladugula <***@gmail.com> wrote:
My thoughts are :

1. Main heading can be a level 2. No harm in it. Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships.
2. I consider having improper text for labels as violation as per 2.4.6 headings and labels. In your second container the label is Apple but the text is of banana.
3. I don’t think it is a violation.

Thanks & Regards
Rakesh


On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Heading order:
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>

Landmark regions:
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
3. Links which open in a new window:
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?

[Katie Haritos-Shea]

I think there is a *huge* difference between what we tell testers vs
designers/developers.....

For TESTING: WCAG 2.0 should be considered as a 'minimum set' of
requirements.

For DEVELOPMENT: The functional requirements should include WCAG 2.0 plus
best-practices that we know are successful. Once WCAG 2.1 becomes a
Recommendation at the W3C, then organizations could/should begin to include
those new success criteria as additional best-practices (until such time
their governing body requires it or some other requirements).

** katie **

*Katie Haritos-Shea*
*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect *

*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS = *
*CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>

*Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* ****@gmail.com
<***@gmail.com>* *| **Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.

Post by ALAN SMITH
Well, I’ll be the first to push back on this on behalf of the disabled and
not the designer.
I’ve always said we can make are web pages technically accessible by the
letter of the guidelines but they may still not be accessible to those who
need them to be so.
If you are coding your accessibility for designers, then you can have h1 followed by h5.
If you are coding your accessibility for blind users, then follow the
proper hierarchical order.
You will have a better website and you won’t have to manually review each
suggested violation of this out of order heading structure by every
automated testing tool which will flag this as a potential violation.
You can always set a font value with class if your designers need a
certain “look” for your text on the page.
Think of how you decide to code for accessibility makes a disabled person
- and in this case a blind person - feel when they use your site.
Alan Smith
*Sent: *Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:41 PM
*Subject: *Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements
Hello,
Phill Jenkins is correct concerning the headings. WCAG 2.0 does not
specifically require headings be nested.
And yes, this is the right place to post this kind of question on WCAG conformance ....:-)
** katie **
*Katie Haritos-Shea *
*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect *
*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, **IAAP CPACC+WAS
= **CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*
People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......
Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.
1. Main heading can be a level 2. No harm in it. Having h5 after h2 is a
violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships.
2. I consider having improper text for labels as violation as per 2.4.6
headings and labels. In your second container the label is Apple but the
text is of banana.
3. I don’t think it is a violation.
Thanks & Regards
Rakesh
On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?
--
Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

[ALAN SMITH]

Katie,

This implies that the testers are on a different page than the designers and developers.

Testers make sure designers and developers have done it “right”.
Which should be a company policy and standard that they all work towards.
Not something different for testers and designers and developers.

From my 30 years of testing that just does not work, especially with accessibility requirements.

Perhaps I miss understood you?

Alan Smith

From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 4:59 PM
To: ALAN SMITH
Cc: Rakesh Paladugula; Ramakrishnan Subramanian; WAI Interest Group
Subject: Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements

I think there is a *huge* difference between what we tell testers vs designers/developers.....

For TESTING: WCAG 2.0 should be considered as a 'minimum set' of requirements.

For DEVELOPMENT: The functional requirements should include WCAG 2.0 plus best-practices that we know are successful. Once WCAG 2.1 becomes a Recommendation at the W3C, then organizations could/should begin to include those new success criteria as additional best-practices (until such time their governing body requires it or some other requirements).


* katie * 
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect 
WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP CPACC+WAS = CPWA
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ***@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to dictate where we are going.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:10 PM, ALAN SMITH <***@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I’ll be the first to push back on this on behalf of the disabled and not the designer.
 
I’ve always said we can make are web pages technically accessible by the letter of the guidelines but they may still not be accessible to those who need them to be so.
 
If you are coding your accessibility for designers, then you can have h1 followed by h5.
If you are coding your accessibility for blind users, then follow the proper hierarchical order.
 
You will have a better website and you won’t have to manually review each suggested violation of this out of order heading structure by every automated testing tool which will flag this as a potential violation.
 
You can always set a font value with class if your designers need a certain “look” for your text on the page.
 
Think of how you decide to code for accessibility makes a disabled person - and in this case a blind person - feel when they use your site.
 
Alan Smith
 
From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:41 PM
To: Rakesh Paladugula
Cc: Ramakrishnan Subramanian; WAI Interest Group
Subject: Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements
 
Hello,
 
Phill Jenkins is correct concerning the headings. WCAG 2.0 does not specifically require headings be nested.
 
And yes, this is the right place to post this kind of question on WCAG conformance ....:-)


* katie * 
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect 
WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP CPACC+WAS = CPWA
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ***@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to dictate where we are going.
 
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Rakesh Paladugula <***@gmail.com> wrote:
My thoughts are :

1. Main heading can be a level 2. No harm in it. Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships.
2. I consider having improper text for labels as violation as per 2.4.6 headings and labels. In your second container the label is Apple but the text is of banana.
3. I don’t think it is a violation.

Thanks & Regards
Rakesh

On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Heading order:
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>

Landmark regions:
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
3. Links which open in a new window:
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?

[George Kerscher]

Hello All,

From Publishing at the W3C perspective, the heading structure is needed.

In the EPUB Accessibility Conformance and Discovery Specification 1.0, this is made very clear.

Furthermore, the accessibility checker for EPUB, Ace by DAISY, pulls out the whole publications heading hierarchy and provides this as a visualization to make it easier to see the structures.

Best
George


From: Katie Haritos-Shea [mailto:***@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:59 PM
To: ALAN SMITH <***@gmail.com>
Cc: Rakesh Paladugula <***@gmail.com>; Ramakrishnan Subramanian <***@gmail.com>; WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-***@w3.org>
Subject: Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements

I think there is a *huge* difference between what we tell testers vs designers/developers.....

For TESTING: WCAG 2.0 should be considered as a 'minimum set' of requirements.

For DEVELOPMENT: The functional requirements should include WCAG 2.0 plus best-practices that we know are successful. Once WCAG 2.1 becomes a Recommendation at the W3C, then organizations could/should begin to include those new success criteria as additional best-practices (until such time their governing body requires it or some other requirements).


* katie *
Katie Haritos-Shea
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect
WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP CPACC+WAS = <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants> CPWA
Cell: <tel:[phone]> 703-371-5545 | <mailto:***@gmail.com> ***@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to dictate where we are going.

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:10 PM, ALAN SMITH <***@gmail.com <mailto:***@gmail.com> > wrote:
Well, I’ll be the first to push back on this on behalf of the disabled and not the designer.

I’ve always said we can make are web pages technically accessible by the letter of the guidelines but they may still not be accessible to those who need them to be so.

If you are coding your accessibility for designers, then you can have h1 followed by h5.
If you are coding your accessibility for blind users, then follow the proper hierarchical order.

You will have a better website and you won’t have to manually review each suggested violation of this out of order heading structure by every automated testing tool which will flag this as a potential violation.

You can always set a font value with class if your designers need a certain “look” for your text on the page.

Think of how you decide to code for accessibility makes a disabled person - and in this case a blind person - feel when they use your site.

Alan Smith

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <mailto:***@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:41 PM
To: Rakesh Paladugula <mailto:***@gmail.com>
Cc: Ramakrishnan Subramanian <mailto:***@gmail.com> ; WAI Interest Group <mailto:w3c-wai-***@w3.org>
Subject: Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements

Hello,

Phill Jenkins is correct concerning the headings. WCAG 2.0 does not specifically require headings be nested.

And yes, this is the right place to post this kind of question on WCAG conformance ....:-)


* katie *
Katie Haritos-Shea
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect
WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP CPACC+WAS = <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants> CPWA
Cell: <tel:[phone]> 703-371-5545 | <mailto:***@gmail.com> ***@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to dictate where we are going.

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Rakesh Paladugula <***@gmail.com <mailto:***@gmail.com> > wrote:
My thoughts are :

1. Main heading can be a level 2. No harm in it. Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships.
2. I consider having improper text for labels as violation as per 2.4.6 headings and labels. In your second container the label is Apple but the text is of banana.
3. I don’t think it is a violation.

Thanks & Regards
Rakesh

On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <***@gmail.com <mailto:***@gmail.com> > wrote:

Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Heading order:
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>

Landmark regions:
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
3. Links which open in a new window:
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?

[Srinivasu Chakravarthula]

In theory, I would agree with you, Katie. But you would certainly know that
this doesn't practically work. Even when testers call something as a
violation itself, chances are less that they get fixed; but if we tell
designers and developers something is a best practice, I sincerely feel
that things never get addressed.

Having wrong structure / semantics should never be a best practice.
Thanks,
Vasu

Regards,

Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://twitter.com/CSrinivasu/
Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://serveominclusion.com

Let's create an inclusive web!

Lead Accessibility Consultant, Informatica

Post by Katie Haritos-Shea
I think there is a *huge* difference between what we tell testers vs
designers/developers.....
For TESTING: WCAG 2.0 should be considered as a 'minimum set' of
requirements.
For DEVELOPMENT: The functional requirements should include WCAG 2.0 plus
best-practices that we know are successful. Once WCAG 2.1 becomes a
Recommendation at the W3C, then organizations could/should begin to include
those new success criteria as additional best-practices (until such time
their governing body requires it or some other requirements).
** katie **
*Katie Haritos-Shea*
*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect *
*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS
= **CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*
People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......
Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.

Post by ALAN SMITH
Well, I’ll be the first to push back on this on behalf of the disabled
and not the designer.
I’ve always said we can make are web pages technically accessible by the
letter of the guidelines but they may still not be accessible to those who
need them to be so.
If you are coding your accessibility for designers, then you can have h1 followed by h5.
If you are coding your accessibility for blind users, then follow the
proper hierarchical order.
You will have a better website and you won’t have to manually review each
suggested violation of this out of order heading structure by every
automated testing tool which will flag this as a potential violation.
You can always set a font value with class if your designers need a
certain “look” for your text on the page.
Think of how you decide to code for accessibility makes a disabled person
- and in this case a blind person - feel when they use your site.
Alan Smith
*Sent: *Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:41 PM
*Subject: *Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements
Hello,
Phill Jenkins is correct concerning the headings. WCAG 2.0 does not
specifically require headings be nested.
And yes, this is the right place to post this kind of question on WCAG
conformance ....:-)
** katie **
*Katie Haritos-Shea *
*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect *
*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, **IAAP CPACC+WAS
= **CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*
People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......
Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.
1. Main heading can be a level 2. No harm in it. Having h5 after h2 is a
violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships.
2. I consider having improper text for labels as violation as per 2.4.6
headings and labels. In your second container the label is Apple but the
text is of banana.
3. I don’t think it is a violation.
Thanks & Regards
Rakesh
On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?
--
Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

[Mhis-Archiv]

Hi Alan,

especially screenreader users ask for a headline structure, where not h1 is the root of everything, so Leonie Watson for example answered a question about where to use the h1: above the main content, so pushing the key for navigating to the h1 brings her immediately to the article, she came for, when she opened the page.

Heydon Pickering agreed with her, saying this is good usability.

This implicated, that I have to use h2 or h3 as headlines for everything before the main content.

I as a developer disagreed to accept this as good practice, because letting aside the popularity of Leonie Watson, she is just one user and that’s a pretty thin base for a study about what blind people want.

My reasons: screenreader users already have on a good page two shortcuts to the main content: skip links and the very beginning of the document and the main element with it’s implicit role and landmark.

So I disagree with Leonie Watson in this point, but it brings me to the conclusion, that a headline hierarchy which is not nested completely correctly, is not such a big problem, as it might seem.

Especially not if headings with lower hierarchical order follow such with higher like a h5 following a h2.

So I guess that h5 after h2 is not only not violating any success criterion - it also is no big problem in real life. Maybe a usability issue, but for sure it doesn’t make the content inaccessible.

Just my 2 Cent

--
Mit freundlichen GrÌßen

Marc Haunschild
www.mhis.de

In theory, I would agree with you, Katie. But you would certainly know that this doesn't practically work. Even when testers call something as a violation itself, chances are less that they get fixed; but if we tell designers and developers something is a best practice, I sincerely feel that things never get addressed.
Having wrong structure / semantics should never be a best practice.
Thanks,
Vasu
Regards,
Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://twitter.com/CSrinivasu/
Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://serveominclusion.com
Let's create an inclusive web!
Lead Accessibility Consultant, Informatica

Post by ALAN SMITH
I think there is a *huge* difference between what we tell testers vs designers/developers.....
For TESTING: WCAG 2.0 should be considered as a 'minimum set' of requirements.
For DEVELOPMENT: The functional requirements should include WCAG 2.0 plus best-practices that we know are successful. Once WCAG 2.1 becomes a Recommendation at the W3C, then organizations could/should begin to include those new success criteria as additional best-practices (until such time their governing body requires it or some other requirements).
* katie *
Katie Haritos-Shea
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect
WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP CPACC+WAS = CPWA
People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......
Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to dictate where we are going.

Post by ALAN SMITH
Well, I’ll be the first to push back on this on behalf of the disabled and not the designer.
I’ve always said we can make are web pages technically accessible by the letter of the guidelines but they may still not be accessible to those who need them to be so.
If you are coding your accessibility for designers, then you can have h1 followed by h5.
If you are coding your accessibility for blind users, then follow the proper hierarchical order.
You will have a better website and you won’t have to manually review each suggested violation of this out of order heading structure by every automated testing tool which will flag this as a potential violation.
You can always set a font value with class if your designers need a certain “look” for your text on the page.
Think of how you decide to code for accessibility makes a disabled person - and in this case a blind person - feel when they use your site.
Alan Smith
From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:41 PM
To: Rakesh Paladugula
Cc: Ramakrishnan Subramanian; WAI Interest Group
Subject: Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements
Hello,
Phill Jenkins is correct concerning the headings. WCAG 2.0 does not specifically require headings be nested.
And yes, this is the right place to post this kind of question on WCAG conformance ....:-)
* katie *
Katie Haritos-Shea
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect
WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP CPACC+WAS = CPWA
People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......
Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to dictate where we are going.
1. Main heading can be a level 2. No harm in it. Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships.
2. I consider having improper text for labels as violation as per 2.4.6 headings and labels. In your second container the label is Apple but the text is of banana.
3. I don’t think it is a violation.
Thanks & Regards
Rakesh
Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?
--
Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

[Michael Gower]

To seek a place between these two viewpoints, I'll offer the following.
Where an H1 is followed by an H7, it is almost certainly going to be
chosen to achieve a desired pre-existing presentation for a subheading,
not because the content flows naturally between the levels. So I agree
with Alan's statement that doing so simply to grab the heading
presentation treatment is far less than optimal. I'd flag it if I were
reviewing such content.

However, there are situations where non-contiguous heading levels can make
structural sense -- where the optimal match may be an H1 > H3 structure in
some circumstances. Think of a subject like travel, where larger countries
may be divided into sections which it makes no sense to impose on Vatican
City or Gibraltar. Either the editor is going to have to alter what is
found at an H2 level for small countries (which could itself confuse any
screen reader user browser by a certain heading level), or the editor is
going to have to potentially skip levels to make information on, say,
major cities, match up at the same hierarchical level across the sovereign
states. Some authors will prefer the sectional content to offer contiguous
heading levels; others will want a consistency through the content.

So i think it makes sense to say an optimal heading level follows a
predictable and understandable hierarchical structure, without necessarily
imposing a requirement that the hierarchy be contiguous.
---
In regard to Ramakrishnan's other questions about unique labels for
regions and links which open in new windows...

There is no perfect place I know of to fail the use of the same label on
two different regions on a page. However, it obviously flies in the face
of consistent identification, etc. When I oversaw the creation of the IBM
Accessibility Checklist, we decided to specifically call this out as a
requirement in a supplemental comment for ARIA13. So for at least IBM
products, it is a requirement.
http://www-03.ibm.com/able/guidelines/ci162/bypass_blocks.html#ARIA11supplement

In answer to your question about links opening new windows, there are two
general techniques which cover this: G200: Opening new windows and tabs
from a link only when necessary and G201: Giving users advanced warning
when opening a new window
Like all Sufficient Techniques, they are not requirements, but merely an
acceptable way to meet the Predictable guideline. So while you can
definitely improve predictable behaviour by incorporating them, they are
not required to achieve accessibility, as measured by WCAG.

Trying to prove how something fails against WCAG is often a lot harder to
do than showing how something succeeds. Hope that helps.

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC V8T 5C3
***@ca.ibm.com
voice: [phone] * cel: [phone] * fax: [phone]



From: ALAN SMITH <***@gmail.com>
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <***@gmail.com>, Rakesh Paladugula
<***@gmail.com>
Cc: Ramakrishnan Subramanian <***@gmail.com>, WAI Interest
Group <w3c-wai-***@w3.org>
Date: 2018-03-01 01:28 PM
Subject: RE: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements



Well, I’ll be the first to push back on this on behalf of the disabled and
not the designer.

I’ve always said we can make are web pages technically accessible by the
letter of the guidelines but they may still not be accessible to those who
need them to be so.

If you are coding your accessibility for designers, then you can have h1
followed by h5.
If you are coding your accessibility for blind users, then follow the
proper hierarchical order.

You will have a better website and you won’t have to manually review each
suggested violation of this out of order heading structure by every
automated testing tool which will flag this as a potential violation.

You can always set a font value with class if your designers need a
certain “look” for your text on the page.

Think of how you decide to code for accessibility makes a disabled person
- and in this case a blind person - feel when they use your site.

Alan Smith

From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:41 PM
To: Rakesh Paladugula
Cc: Ramakrishnan Subramanian; WAI Interest Group
Subject: Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements

Hello,

Phill Jenkins is correct concerning the headings. WCAG 2.0 does not
specifically require headings be nested.

And yes, this is the right place to post this kind of question on WCAG
conformance ....:-)

* katie *
Katie Haritos-Shea
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect
WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP CPACC+WAS =
CPWA
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ***@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Rakesh Paladugula <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
My thoughts are :

1. Main heading can be a level 2. No harm in it. Having h5 after h2 is a
violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships.
2. I consider having improper text for labels as violation as per 2.4.6
headings and labels. In your second container the label is Apple but the
text is of banana.
3. I don’t think it is a violation.

Thanks & Regards
Rakesh


On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
***@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Heading order:
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>

Landmark regions:
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
3. Links which open in a new window:
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?


--

Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

[Katie Haritos-Shea]

Well said, Mike.

WCAG interpretations can comprise whole careers, and do.

Alan, I think we would all like and encourage headings to be used and
nested correctly.

But for technology agnostic reasons 1.3.1 has no requirement (in the
normative WCAG 2 standard language) that specifically identifies that
'headings must be nested properly'.

That was not because when WCAG 2 was being written that the WG members
didn't want to include that notion, but we were trying to move away from
the HTML technology-specific language in WCAG 1. Not an excuse, it is just
the landscape at the time.

Additionally, requiring nested headings *can* become a *requirement* of any
organization, if they so chose.

In a court of law though, the chances of winning a lawsuit against a
website based on headings not being nested properly, per WCAG 2
conformance, might be hard to prove.

Should developers use nested headings to improve accessibility? Can you use
1.3.1 as a basis of discussion to convince your developers to nest
headings? Absolutely!

Post by Michael Gower
To seek a place between these two viewpoints, I'll offer the following.
Where an H1 is followed by an H7, it is almost certainly going to be chosen
to achieve a desired pre-existing presentation for a subheading, not
because the content flows naturally between the levels. So I agree with
Alan's statement that doing so simply to grab the heading presentation
treatment is far less than optimal. I'd flag it if I were reviewing such
content.
However, there are situations where non-contiguous heading levels can make
structural sense -- where the optimal match may be an H1 > H3 structure in
some circumstances. Think of a subject like travel, where larger countries
may be divided into sections which it makes no sense to impose on Vatican
City or Gibraltar. Either the editor is going to have to alter what is
found at an H2 level for small countries (which could itself confuse any
screen reader user browser by a certain heading level), or the editor is
going to have to potentially skip levels to make information on, say, major
cities, match up at the same hierarchical level across the sovereign
states. Some authors will prefer the sectional content to offer contiguous
heading levels; others will want a consistency through the content.
So i think it makes sense to say an optimal heading level follows a
predictable and understandable hierarchical structure, without necessarily
imposing a requirement that the hierarchy be contiguous.
---
In regard to Ramakrishnan's other questions about unique labels for
regions and links which open in new windows...
There is no perfect place I know of to fail the use of the same label on
two different regions on a page. However, it obviously flies in the face of
consistent identification, etc. When I oversaw the creation of the IBM
Accessibility Checklist, we decided to specifically call this out as a
requirement in a supplemental comment for ARIA13. So for at least IBM
products, it is a requirement.http://www-03.ibm.com/able/guidelines/ci162/
bypass_blocks.html#ARIA11supplement
In answer to your question about links opening new windows, there are two
general techniques which cover this: G200: Opening new windows and tabs
from a link only when necessary
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G200.html>and G201: Giving users
advanced warning when opening a new window
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G201.html>
Like all Sufficient Techniques, they are not requirements, but merely an
acceptable way to meet the Predictable guideline. So while you can
definitely improve predictable behaviour by incorporating them, they are
not required to achieve accessibility, as measured by WCAG.
Trying to prove how something fails against WCAG is often a lot harder to
do than showing how something succeeds. Hope that helps.
Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research
1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC
<https://maps.google.com/?q=1803+Douglas+Street,+Victoria,+BC++V8T+5C3&entry=gmail&source=g>
V8T 5C3
<https://maps.google.com/?q=1803+Douglas+Street,+Victoria,+BC++V8T+5C3&entry=gmail&source=g>
voice: [phone] * cel: [phone] * fax: [phone]
Date: 2018-03-01 01:28 PM
Subject: RE: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements
------------------------------
Well, I’ll be the first to push back on this on behalf of the disabled and
not the designer.
I’ve always said we can make are web pages technically accessible by the
letter of the guidelines but they may still not be accessible to those who
need them to be so.
If you are coding your accessibility for designers, then you can have h1 followed by h5.
If you are coding your accessibility for blind users, then follow the
proper hierarchical order.
You will have a better website and you won’t have to manually review each
suggested violation of this out of order heading structure by every
automated testing tool which will flag this as a potential violation.
You can always set a font value with class if your designers need a
certain “look” for your text on the page.
Think of how you decide to code for accessibility makes a disabled person
- and in this case a blind person - feel when they use your site.
Alan Smith
*Sent: *Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:41 PM
*Subject: *Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements
Hello,
Phill Jenkins is correct concerning the headings. WCAG 2.0 does not
specifically require headings be nested.
And yes, this is the right place to post this kind of question on WCAG conformance ....:-)
** katie **
*Katie Haritos-Shea *
*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect *
*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, **IAAP CPACC+WAS =
**CPWA*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accessibilityassociation.org_cpwacertificants&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=MXaARjk_Pn34vUl9k-EF2Y5L0I59YwsZvnSjRc4Vw1k&s=dQy2XK8iohK0gZLxdo0GdYvXL6Xbnaovirb580v-wtE&e=>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_katieharitosshea_&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=MXaARjk_Pn34vUl9k-EF2Y5L0I59YwsZvnSjRc4Vw1k&s=WPWTHKnD7IxkzqyHPmktlRSxkL3l9d1r8gzcsTojqaE&e=>
People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......
Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.
1. Main heading can be a level 2. No harm in it. Having h5 after h2 is a
violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships.
2. I consider having improper text for labels as violation as per 2.4.6
headings and labels. In your second container the label is Apple but the
text is of banana.
3. I don’t think it is a violation.
Thanks & Regards
Rakesh
On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?
--
Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

[ALAN SMITH]

Katie et al,

I appreciate everyone’s feedback, viewpoints and interpretation on this.

At CSUN, I will be conducting serval non-visual user interviews with questions on their experiences with web accessibility and I’ll include this topic in my research.

I hope their hearing and cognitive experience matches our interpretations of what they need.

Best Regards.

Alan Smith

From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 7:03 PM
To: Michael Gower
Cc: Alan; Rakesh Paladugula; Ramakrishnan Subramanian; WAI Interest Group
Subject: RE: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements

Well said, Mike.

WCAG interpretations can comprise whole careers, and do. 

Alan, I think we would all like and encourage headings to be used and nested correctly. 

But for technology agnostic reasons 1.3.1 has no requirement (in the normative WCAG 2 standard language) that specifically identifies that 'headings must be nested properly'. 

That was not because when WCAG 2 was being written that the WG members didn't want to include that notion, but we were trying to move away from the HTML technology-specific language in WCAG 1. Not an excuse, it is just the landscape at the time.

Additionally, requiring nested headings *can* become a *requirement* of any organization, if they so chose. 

In a court of law though, the chances of winning a lawsuit against a website based on headings not being nested properly, per WCAG 2 conformance, might be hard to prove.

Should developers use nested headings to improve accessibility? Can you use 1.3.1 as a basis of discussion to convince your developers to nest headings? Absolutely!

On Mar 1, 2018 5:51 PM, "Michael Gower" <***@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
To seek a place between these two viewpoints, I'll offer the following. Where an H1 is followed by an H7, it is almost certainly going to be chosen to achieve a desired pre-existing presentation for a subheading, not because the content flows naturally between the levels. So I agree with Alan's statement that doing so simply to grab the heading presentation treatment is far less than optimal. I'd flag it if I were reviewing such content.

However, there are situations where non-contiguous heading levels can make structural sense -- where the optimal match may be an H1 > H3 structure in some circumstances. Think of a subject like travel, where larger countries may be divided into sections which it makes no sense to impose on Vatican City or Gibraltar. Either the editor is going to have to alter what is found at an H2 level for small countries (which could itself confuse any screen reader user browser by a certain heading level), or the editor is going to have to potentially skip levels to make information on, say, major cities, match up at the same hierarchical level across the sovereign states. Some authors will prefer the sectional content to offer contiguous heading levels; others will want a consistency through the content.

So i think it makes sense to say an optimal heading level follows a predictable and understandable hierarchical structure, without necessarily imposing a requirement that the hierarchy be contiguous.
---
In regard to Ramakrishnan's other questions about unique labels for regions and links which open in new windows...

There is no perfect place I know of to fail the use of the same label on two different regions on a page. However, it obviously flies in the face of consistent identification, etc. When I oversaw the creation of the IBM Accessibility Checklist, we decided to specifically call this out as a requirement in a supplemental comment for ARIA13. So for at least IBM products, it is a requirement.http://www-03.ibm.com/able/guidelines/ci162/bypass_blocks.html#ARIA11supplement

In answer to your question about links opening new windows, there are two general techniques which cover this: G200: Opening new windows and tabs from a link only when necessaryand G201: Giving users advanced warning when opening a new window
Like all Sufficient Techniques, they are not requirements, but merely an acceptable way to meet the Predictable guideline. So while you can definitely improve predictable behaviour by incorporating them, they are not required to achieve accessibility, as measured by WCAG.

Trying to prove how something fails against WCAG is often a lot harder to do than showing how something succeeds. Hope that helps.

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
***@ca.ibm.com
voice: [phone] * cel: [phone] *  fax: [phone]



From:        ALAN SMITH <***@gmail.com>
To:        Katie Haritos-Shea <***@gmail.com>, Rakesh Paladugula <***@gmail.com>
Cc:        Ramakrishnan Subramanian <***@gmail.com>, WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-***@w3.org>
Date:        2018-03-01 01:28 PM
Subject:        RE: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements


Well, I’ll be the first to push back on this on behalf of the disabled and not the designer.
 
I’ve always said we can make are web pages technically accessible by the letter of the guidelines but they may still not be accessible to those who need them to be so.
 
If you are coding your accessibility for designers, then you can have h1 followed by h5.
If you are coding your accessibility for blind users, then follow the proper hierarchical order.
 
You will have a better website and you won’t have to manually review each suggested violation of this out of order heading structure by every automated testing tool which will flag this as a potential violation.
 
You can always set a font value with class if your designers need a certain “look” for your text on the page.
 
Think of how you decide to code for accessibility makes a disabled person - and in this case a blind person - feel when they use your site.
 
Alan Smith
 
From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:41 PM
To: Rakesh Paladugula
Cc: Ramakrishnan Subramanian; WAI Interest Group
Subject: Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements
 
Hello,
 
Phill Jenkins is correct concerning the headings. WCAG 2.0 does not specifically require headings be nested.
 
And yes, this is the right place to post this kind of question on WCAG conformance ....:-)
* katie *
Katie Haritos-Shea
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect
WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP CPACC+WAS = CPWA
Cell: 703-371-5545|***@gmail.com|Oakton, VA |LinkedIn Profile

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to dictate where we are going.
 
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Rakesh Paladugula <***@gmail.com> wrote:
My thoughts are :

1. Main heading can be a level 2. No harm in it. Having h5 after h2 is a violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships.
2. I consider having improper text for labels as violation as per 2.4.6 headings and labels. In your second container the label is Apple but the text is of banana.
3. I don’t think it is a violation.

Thanks & Regards
Rakesh

On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Heading order:
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>

Landmark regions:
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
3. Links which open in a new window:
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?

[Srinivasu Chakravarthula]

Katie,
With due respect, I believe WCAG do require authors to structure (1.3.1)
pages correctly. When we talk about structuring, wouldn't it require
headings to be nested correctly? I have reported them as violations as well
have seen many others doing it. I don't consider <h2> followed by <h5>
would be a best way to do.

If not WCAG, perhaps HTML spec may require authors to use at least one <h1>
on the page.

Thanks,
Vasu

Regards,

Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://twitter.com/CSrinivasu/
Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://serveominclusion.com

Let's create an inclusive web!

Lead Accessibility Consultant, Informatica

Post by Katie Haritos-Shea
Hello,
Phill Jenkins is correct concerning the headings. WCAG 2.0 does not
specifically require headings be nested.
And yes, this is the right place to post this kind of question on WCAG
conformance ....:-)
** katie **
*Katie Haritos-Shea*
*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect *
*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS
= **CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*
People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......
Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.

Post by Rakesh Paladugula
1. Main heading can be a level 2. No harm in it. Having h5 after h2 is a
violation as per 1.3.1 info & relationships.
2. I consider having improper text for labels as violation as per 2.4.6
headings and labels. In your second container the label is Apple but the
text is of banana.
3. I don’t think it is a violation.
Thanks & Regards
Rakesh
On 14-Feb-2018, at 11:41 AM, Ramakrishnan Subramanian <
Dear Members,
I hope it is appropriate to post this query here.
I kindly request you to help me understand few of the accessibility
related issues mentioned below.
Whether these are treated as accessibility enhancement which would be
helpful for the end user. Or accessibility violation.
Whether the following heading level is considered an accessibility
violation? if yes, which criteria does this violate?
The first heading level in the page is <h2> sample text </h2>
The next heading level is <h5> sample text </h5>
When there are different content given inside two different aria
region, with same aria label. Under which criteria this fails?
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Apple related content goes here
</div>
<div role=”region” aria-label=”apple”>
Bannana related content goes here
</div>
When there is no indication for the screen reader users for the link
which opens in a new window, is that considered an accessibility
violation? If yes, which criteria does this issue violate?
--
Thanks and Regards
Ramakrishnan

[c***@pubcom.com]

I’m just a lurker on this list, but I’m a member on other accessibility standards committees.



This issue of non-sequential (or out-of-order) headings has become a heated debate everywhere and I believe it’s a terrible trend. It certainly violates, in principal, the concept of making digital media accessible to people.



Writing, editing, publishing — regardless of the media that delivers it — has always stressed a logical hierarchy of headings and that theory has worked well over the past 100 years of communication. It’s called good writing.



I don’t understand what has brought about this change in thought on all the standards committees, that it’s OK to jump from H2 to H5.



It is not ok. It harms many people who use assistive technologies.



What’s happened to our commitment to those of us who use assistive technologies, who depend upon them? Does the community’s needs no longer have any merit? During the past couple of years, those of us on standards committees seem to have put the cart before the horse.



Our standards are developed for people who use technology — not for the computers or technologies that deliver the content. Otherwise, we are just wasting our time developing any accessibility standards at all.



Peoples’ need first. Then it’s the software engineers’ job to make their technology meet those needs.



—Bevi Chagnon



— — —

Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | <mailto:***@PubCom.com> ***@PubCom.com

— — —

PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing

consulting • training • development • design • sec. 508 services

Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes

— — —

[Srinivasu Chakravarthula]

Very well said! Thank you...

Regards,

Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://twitter.com/CSrinivasu/
Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://serveominclusion.com

Let's create an inclusive web!

Lead Accessibility Consultant, Informatica

Post by c***@pubcom.com
I’m just a lurker on this list, but I’m a member on other accessibility
standards committees.
This issue of non-sequential (or out-of-order) headings has become a
heated debate everywhere and I believe it’s a terrible trend. It certainly
violates, in principal, the concept of making digital media accessible to
people.
Writing, editing, publishing — regardless of the media that delivers it —
has always stressed a logical hierarchy of headings and that theory has
worked well over the past 100 years of communication. It’s called good
writing.
I don’t understand what has brought about this change in thought on all
the standards committees, that it’s OK to jump from H2 to H5.
It is *not* ok. It harms many people who use assistive technologies.
What’s happened to our commitment to those of us who use assistive
technologies, who depend upon them? Does the community’s needs no longer
have any merit? During the past couple of years, those of us on standards
committees seem to have put the cart before the horse.
Our standards are developed for people who use technology — not for the
computers or technologies that deliver the content. Otherwise, we are just
wasting our time developing any accessibility standards at all.
*Peoples’ need first*. Then it’s the software engineers’ job to make
their technology meet those needs.
—Bevi Chagnon
*— — —*
*— — —*
*PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing*
consulting • training • development • design • sec. 508 services
*Upcoming classes* at www.PubCom.com/classes
*— — —*

[Bim Egan]

Agreed! It deserves a +100.


Bim

-------------
Bim Egan
Skype: bim.accessequals
Coordinator: Describe Online
W: www.describe-online.com
E: bim <mailto:***@describe-online.com> @describe-online.com
Partner: AccessEquals
W: www.accessequals.com
E: ***@accessequals.com




_____

From: Srinivasu Chakravarthula [mailto:***@srinivasu.org]
Sent: 02 March 2018 08:55
To: ***@pubcom.com
Cc: w3c WAI List
Subject: Re: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements


Very well said! Thank you...

Regards,

Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter: http://twitter.com/CSrinivasu/
Website: http://www.srinivasu.org | http://serveominclusion.com


Let's create an inclusive web!


Lead Accessibility Consultant, Informatica



On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:42 PM, <***@pubcom.com> wrote:


I'm just a lurker on this list, but I'm a member on other accessibility
standards committees.



This issue of non-sequential (or out-of-order) headings has become a heated
debate everywhere and I believe it's a terrible trend. It certainly
violates, in principal, the concept of making digital media accessible to
people.



Writing, editing, publishing - regardless of the media that delivers it -
has always stressed a logical hierarchy of headings and that theory has
worked well over the past 100 years of communication. It's called good
writing.



I don't understand what has brought about this change in thought on all the
standards committees, that it's OK to jump from H2 to H5.



It is not ok. It harms many people who use assistive technologies.



What's happened to our commitment to those of us who use assistive
technologies, who depend upon them? Does the community's needs no longer
have any merit? During the past couple of years, those of us on standards
committees seem to have put the cart before the horse.



Our standards are developed for people who use technology - not for the
computers or technologies that deliver the content. Otherwise, we are just
wasting our time developing any accessibility standards at all.



Peoples' need first. Then it's the software engineers' job to make their
technology meet those needs.



-Bevi Chagnon



- - -

Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO | <mailto:***@PubCom.com> ***@PubCom.com

- - -

PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing

consulting . training . development . design . sec. 508 services

Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes

- - -






_____

<http://www.avg.com/internet-security> AVG logo
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/internet-security>

[ALAN SMITH]

Bevi,

I liked your statement “What’s happened to our commitment to those of us who use assistive technologies”.

I sent out an email to the WCAG group asking:
“Team,
Since we put so much effort into WCAG 2.1, much from a theoretical and experiential viewpoint of those on the various taskforces, is there any effort to have actual users with disabilities who may be attending CSUN queried on whether the new SCs in WCAG 2.1 will in fact meet the needs of those they are intended for?
This seems like a perfect opportunity to get actual user feedback on this effort.
Best. “

Only a few replied and the answer was “NO”.

I’m disappointed in that reply. 

Alan Smith

From: ***@pubcom.com
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 3:27 AM
To: w3c-wai-***@w3.org
Subject: RE: WCAG vialations or accessibility enhancements

I’m just a lurker on this list, but I’m a member on other accessibility standards committees.

This issue of non-sequential (or out-of-order) headings has become a heated debate everywhere and I believe it’s a terrible trend. It certainly violates, in principal, the concept of making digital media accessible to people.

Writing, editing, publishing — regardless of the media that delivers it — has always stressed a logical hierarchy of headings and that theory has worked well over the past 100 years of communication. It’s called good writing.

I don’t understand what has brought about this change in thought on all the standards committees, that it’s OK to jump from H2 to H5.

It is not ok. It harms many people who use assistive technologies.

What’s happened to our commitment to those of us who use assistive technologies, who depend upon them? Does the community’s needs no longer have any merit? During the past couple of years, those of us on standards committees seem to have put the cart before the horse.

Our standards are developed for people who use technology — not for the computers or technologies that deliver the content. Otherwise, we are just wasting our time developing any accessibility standards at all.

Peoples’ need first. Then it’s the software engineers’ job to make their technology meet those needs.

—Bevi Chagnon

— — —
Bevi Chagnon, founder/CEO  |  ***@PubCom.com
— — —
PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
consulting • training • development • design • sec. 508 services
Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
— — —