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
*******************************************************************
