On 31/12/08 10:43, tee wrote:
I was testing the FAE the first time, and is questioning its report
credibility because it fails my document title 50%. Not that I don't
like to be wrong :)

According to the report:

Document Title Best Practices

* The page should contain exactly one title element.
* Pass: 1 title element was found.
* The text content of each h1 element should match all or part of the
title content.
* Fail: 0% (0 out of 1)

I cannot find any information about h1 content should match part or all
of the title content on WCAG 2.0 guideline. There isn't guideline
reference link to WCAG 2.0 official site, and I couldn't find such info
on WCAG official document.

FAE isn't a WCAG 2.0 compliance tool.

It's a tool testing for compliance with a set of best practices (CITES/DRES Best Practices) that aim to create accessible websites that comply with WCAG and Section 508 compliance.

http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu/about.php?page=overview

It therefore sbouldn't surprise you if:

1. Some tests aim at accessibility without being directly attributable to WCAG or Section 508.

2. Other tests depend on interpretation of WCAG or Section 508.

Note, furthermore, that the version of WCAG in question is 1.0 not 2.0:

http://cita.disability.uiuc.edu/html-best-practices/

The set of rules about titles refers back to WCAG 1.0 3.5 ("Use header elements to convey document structure and use them according to specification.") and WCAG 1.0 13.8 ("Place distinguishing information at the beginning of headings, paragraphs, lists, etc"):

http://cita.disability.uiuc.edu/html-best-practices/reqs.php

(Note because W3C has changed what http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/ points to, all their reference URLs are broken.)

So here TITLE is being used to distinguish the page with its page title and the site with its site title, and H1 is being used to structure the page under that page title.

If you have good reason to believe this would harm your users, don't do it!

For my part, I think this particular piece of advice is generally sensible from a usability perspective.

Though from the SEO point of view, this 'advice' makes sense.

Although it's not terrible from an SEO point of view, it's not necessarily optimal either.

This also makes me wonder how reliable those accessibility validators
are because I get different results from Cynthia Says and Total
Validators-these are the two I frequently use.

Those are likely using completely different rulesets again, so you have every reason to expect them to be different. They are as reliable as their rulesets.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis


*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*******************************************************************

Reply via email to