Notes from the a11y underground #1

Posted on Wednesday, 15 May 2019 by Steve Faulkner

Patrick's head poking out from a hole in the ceiling

Warning: Patrick looms large in various discussions

I have been meaning to start a periodic noting of meaty articles and threads related to subjects close to my technical heart. Today intent meets action. Here’s a few that have tickled my fancy of late:

That’s almost it for #1, but first a question: feel free to provide your answer as a comment on this article.

See the Pen
heading level WCAG conformance question
by steve faulkner (@stevef)
on CodePen.

About Steve Faulkner

Steve is the Technical Director at TPG. He joined The Paciello Group in 2006 and was previously a Senior Web Accessibility Consultant at vision australia. He is the creator and lead developer of the Web Accessibility Toolbar accessibility testing tool. Steve is a member of several groups, including the W3C Web Platforms Working Group and the W3C ARIA Working Group. He is an editor of several specifications at the W3C including HTML 5.1, ARIA in HTML, Notes on Using ARIA in HTML and HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives. He also develops and maintains HTML5accessibility.

Comments

  1. This one? heading level 1 some text heading level 4 Joe: not a failure, but not a recommended practice Or this one? BIG Heading subtitle for BIG heading Failure against WCAG 1.3.1 A under F43: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.1 due to using structural markup in a way that does not represent relationships in the content (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F43.html)

  2. Your heading question is an interesting one – and one that certainly deserves more discussion and clarity.

    In my opinion, #1 is not a failure of WCAG, except at Level AAA under 2.4.10. Many will indicate this as being a 1.3.1 failure, but the W3C does not have a defined failure for improperly-leveled headings under 1.3.1. Additionally, the impact on users is typically quite minimal (though can easily increase if present numerous times on one page). As such, I do not consider it a 1.3.1 failure, even though proper heading structures are certainly best practice.

    2 is a bit trickier. As above, this would be a 2.4.10 failure, but one likely could not consider it a 1.3.1 failure simply because of the incorrect heading-level usage. One could, however, possibly consider it a 1.3.1 failure if they believe the sub-heading to not really be a distinct heading at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.