Open duboisp opened 4 years ago
My proposal consist in:
For example:
This proposal are major, which will break existing implementation of GCWeb.
Comment received by email
Hi Pierre, great that we are opening the dialogue to hopefully get a sound resolution on how to implement a properly semantic structure.
I’m a bit confused by Mozilla’s phrasing about not using structure, but rather using rank. Which when clicking on the links, they still give you an example of multiple H1s….and using two H1s seems to be still correct as H1 is just simply the first type of “rank”, but doesn’t need to be the “only” rank. And I think it’s more about the fact that things like
However, I find that some W3C and Mozilla statements can be open to different interpretations, so I could be mistaken.
Google supports multiple h1s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyqJJXWk0gk&list=PLKoqnv2vTMUM9wKeb-Gvm8bgpFM72yiXw&index=13&linkId=74709949
And on the w3 page https://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-LC/sections.html#the-h1-h2-h3-h4-h5-and-h6-elements
They show an example with multiple h1s.
I think in the end, it’s all about how people with screen readers can use it and if they use it well. If it’s something that they are not used to…we can always look at aria-labels or invisible text/links to help support the navigation structure for them.
Chris Oakes UX Design Specialist, UX Research and Design, Public Affairs Branch Canada Revenue Agency / Government of Canada
The discussion from the HTML specification about the outline algorithm is still unresolved, see: https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/83
Also, we would need to have a solution that support work for browsers as determined by the wet-boew design decision #2 Which currently include Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Edge and IE11
Our TBS-CRA usability research was with phone users for Canada Child Benefit (16 participants). The design was successful in that people clearly understood their context, and were able to see more on their phone page than with the current very long large H1s in a service initiation page.
Based on that success, we tried the new design with desktop users in a study this month with 18 public servants. An example of that prototype is here: https://tbs-proto1.openplus.ca/en/landing/report-overpayment
I will leave the technical discussion to @delisma with gratitude.
FYI - Still in progress You can see the progress of my technical analysis impact on search result is here: https://wet-boew.github.io/wet-boew-documentation/research/2020-33-double-h1-impact-analysis.html
@duboisp Est-ce que cet issue peut être fermé?
Hi,
This is to open up a discussion about to develop and have a consensus on a design pattern to identify and have a consistent navigation for a set of related pages (sub-section) about a common task
The original propose solution require to use of two (2) heading level 1 (h1) and there is some technical concern about a such pattern.
Context: CRA in collaboration with TBS have done a optimization project to improve the service initiation template. They have chosen to improve the Child Benefit pages.
Discussion goal: The goal of this discussion is to define an HTML pattern that are going to be recognized as valid by other web accessibility expert and will work for users accessing that content with an assistive technology.
This discussion would assume the visual and the interaction pattern for mobile and desktop illustrated by the prototype would remain similar.
This discussion is to define how the visual and the interaction pattern can be technically articulated, coded and styled. That regardless how the prototype was originally coded or modified.
This discussion is focused on the design pattern for how a set of related pages could be named and navigated in a consistent manner. If you have other concern which is not related to this aspect, please open a new github issue.
For whatever proposed solution it must be conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA, conform to W3C specification and be currently functional to users.
Note on the propose pattern: I was been told that CRA has completed some usability research but they haven't published the result yet or I might simply currently don't where I can retrieve those UX research result/report.
Original proposed pattern:
Link:
Code form the generic prototype
Code from the child benefit prototype
Some formal reference to guide the discussion:
/cc @cfarquharson, @delisma, @bsouster