The main point of the article, though, seems to be that sometimes the WCAG2 level requirements (A, AA, AAA) are a bit strange. He gives an example of what’s needed to conform to level AAA with headings, and then for just A (the lowest). For example, breaking up a 5000-word essay with properly marked-up headings with unrelated words (such as <h1>jibber-jabber</h1> and <h2>heading!</h2>) will count as satisfying level A conformance. It’s only up at level AA that the headings actually have to have meaning. That is lawlz.
[font=verdana]Hmmm … I’m really struggling to see what Roger’s point is here. It could go one of two ways:
1 - making up headings properly is just so darned easy that there is no excuse for anyone not to get AA
2 - the WCAG specs are badly written.
Personally, I think that as far as headings go, there really ought to just be one standard, which is required to get an A but is also sufficient to get AAA. It’s just so basic that it’s hard to see how the correct use of heading tags could be sensibly split into three levels of pass. Instead we get lots of incomprehensible guff about ‘programatically determined’, which doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. So much for the accessibility standards being accessible… :sigh:[/font]