Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

aside Heading levels should not be checked for heading order with the main content #424

Open
clapierre opened this issue Sep 12, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@clapierre
Copy link

ACE 1.3.2

The DAISY KB has identified an exception for <aside>'s that they don't have to follow the main content's heading level continuity.

If a publisher cannot maintain heading numbering consistency, they should try to find another method that users can predict. For example, using h6 for all sidebars. In this case, though, the publisher should instruct users on this convention; for example, in a section on how to use the ebook.

I would suggest adding that information in the accessibilitySummary.

ACE should not flag headings which skip levels if they are found inside of an <aside>

@mattgarrish
Copy link

mattgarrish commented Sep 12, 2024

Not skipping heading levels is only best practice regardless of where it occurs. The WCAG requirement is that headings be identified. For user ease of reading, having them ordered by level is ideal.

But if you don't flag a difference between the main content and the aside, then how would a publisher know if they made a mistake where they otherwise meant for the aside to start one level below the current section's heading?

I don't think you can please everyone here, in other words. Either one side lives with some erroneous best practice messages because they've chosen to follow a different convention, or the other side has to manually check their headings because Ace won't flag a numbering jump.

@clapierre
Copy link
Author

Thats a good point Matt.
Right now, ACE is flagging this as a Serious Best Practice. I wonder what options we could entertain here.
I have a few major publishers that have pushed back hard on this issue.
I am wondering if this is an option to include or not. Its sorta like the EPUBCheck issue where some distributors want 0 errors / warnings. I could see this being in the same camp wanting a clean EPUBCheck report.

@mattgarrish
Copy link

mattgarrish commented Sep 12, 2024

Ya, it's a no-win situation absent the option to control what message levels (or rules) are checked. A clean report is critical above the best practice level. At that level and below, you should temper your expectations.

Changing heading levels inside asides is permissible, but it's not a best practice. The whole point of saying to document it is because no one is going to expect what you're doing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants