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

Missing semantic structure in quick facts section #607

Closed
sgroi-l opened this issue Sep 19, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #617
Closed

Missing semantic structure in quick facts section #607

sgroi-l opened this issue Sep 19, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #617

Comments

@sgroi-l
Copy link

sgroi-l commented Sep 19, 2024

Description

The "Quick Fact" section on the service page lacks proper semantic structure. Key information is styled in a way that suggests importance but does not use appropriate semantic elements to convey its meaning.

Expected Behaviour

  • Information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation should be programmatically determined or available in text.
  • Semantic elements like headings should be used to structure content properly.

Actual Behaviour

  • The "Quick Fact" section contains styled content that lacks semantic equivalents. For example, the main content is styled to appear larger but does not use appropriate semantic elements to indicate its significance.

How to Replicate

  1. Visit a service page, such as this example page.
  2. Locate the "Quick Facts" section.
  3. Inspect the HTML markup to verify that the section uses div elements with styling but lacks semantic elements.

WCAG Reference / Links

  • WCAG Guideline 1.3.1: Info and Relationships (A)
    Information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are available in text, such as headings, landmarks, lists, tables, and footnotes.

More details: WCAG 1.3.1 Info and Relationships

Recommendations

  1. Update the "Quick Fact" section to use appropriate semantic HTML elements.
@markconroy
Copy link
Member

@sgroi-l can you test this PR please? Especially, take note of the comment in the Accessibility section in the PR.

Thanks.

@ekes ekes closed this as completed in #617 Sep 24, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants