There are more than W3C standards. While the W3C standards are great, they leave too much to interpretation. Hence the problem that arises here.
Lee >> [quote]However, once you start approaching any attempt to comply with WCAG you need to follow the standards correctly.[/quote] Drew >> [quote]Actually what she'd have to do is apply headers according to the specs and then apply WCAG.[/quote] Drew's statement says the same thing I did. Follow the HTML specs and then apply WCAG. WCAG in the case of heading says to use them correctly. While the W3C doesn't really clarify how they should be used, the ISO standards do. I would suggest using them, they'll help a lot more. But the point of my statement was clarification of what "some people" means. I always thought it was helpful for someone to explain something that people don't understand so that others may understand it. Lee >> [quote]Part of using headings properly is to aid accessibility and helping people scan the web page. Based upon those two requirements the use of heading tags as they are in Kim's site do not qualify - therefore, they are only font declarations and <strong> or CSS:font-weight:bold should be used to make those elements bold. Please explain why you might think a couple of sentences qualifies to be under it's own sectional heading. I'd really be interested in learning the thought process there. Two sentences do not qualify for a sectional heading in a book; why would they in a web page?[/quote] Drew >> [quote]As to a two word section, it is conceivable. It probably isn't going to be great literature but there is no theoretical reason it can't be done. So let's try an h1 of "fire" followed by the single word "hot". Not really useful but proper.[/quote] Where did I say anything about a two word section? I specifically said "a couple of sentences" and then "two sentences". Proper language skills declares that a sentence contain a noun/pronoun, verb and subject. Anything less is actually a sentence fragment and would then need updating once the WCAG2 is released since it requires clear and easily understood language. I hope this helps. Sincerely, Lee Roberts http://www.roserockdesign.com http://www.applepiecart.com -----Original Message----- From: Trusz, Andrew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 12:35 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [WSG]headers >>Let's discuss some issues for a moment and perhaps some light will >>shine upon some comments. Drew >> [qoute]The vague discussion of "some people" not approving of skipped levels does not say that a hierarchy of headings is required.[/quote] >>The vague discussion of "some people" refers to the International Standards Organization. In their specifications they specifically state that headings must follow a logical order and not skip any heading tags. http://www.cs.tcd.ie/15445/15445.HTM<< ----------------------------------------------------- So you are saying the specifications are incomplete? "Some people" does not equate to "headers must be in hierarchical order". Readers of the specifications cannot be reasonably expected to know there are other documents which supersede the specs unless they are so informed. Where did I miss that in the specs? Either the specs are authoritative or they are not. If they are then what they say is what needs to be followed. Other material is then by definition extraneous. One can only go by what is written not what was "really" meant. The logic of language suggests that since the term "some people" was used and not a definitive statement that hierarchy order of headings need not be respected. The paragraph is saying there is a school of thought which endorses hierarchy but that the specs do not. Otherwise the language doesn't mean what it says. And that would make the document worthless. >>First, you can have pages without headings - that I'll agree with. However, once you start approaching any attempt to comply with WCAG you need to follow the standards correctly.<< Actually what she'd have to do is apply headers according to the specs and then apply WCAG. Can't say if she'd done so since I haven't looked at the site. Nor do I know exactly what WCAG standards you are saying she has to apply. You or I might have organized the material differently but that is immaterial to applying the standards properly. As to a two word section, it is conceivable. It probably isn't going to be great literature but there is no theoretical reason it can't be done. So let's try an h1 of "fire" followed by the single word "hot". Not really useful but proper. drew ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ***************************************************** ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
