4 ms·

I agree with this. Further <h1> with only the default style SHOULD NOT BE A WARNING. At least make it only warn if 'h1's are nested.

sfink 2y ago
The article seemed to repeatedly suggest that any <h1> without a font size set would be a warning, but reading more closely I'm pretty sure it's only talking about <h1> nested within <section> etc. (So I believe Lighthouse and Firefox are both already doing what you describe in the last sentence.)
- alexpetros 2y ago
  I'd love the article to clarify this, because it stuck out to me as well. But as you pointed out, I think that's what they meant: the lighthouse warning is called "H1UserAgentFontSizeInSection"
- mjevans 2y ago
  I still think even one within a section (or even div like nested sections) shouldn't be a warning... but I hadn't heard of <section> until today (seemingly it's been in browsers for decades, I just hadn't seen it USED anywhere) so I'm not sure if that implies something other than a logical structural block. From the context it seemed like a different type of div or span.
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    "decades" I had to look it up, it's been 15 years apparently, with HTML5 being 17 years old... I quipped to my colleague that I'm still stuck at XHTML. Mind you, that's also because in 2008 we still had to support Internet Explorer 6.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    Sections are a very good idea for a tag that embedded a document in a lower hierarchy inside your document. The way that it should be from the beginning instead of having the global h1, h2... and hacking a structure out of them. But then screen readers universally decided that no, instead of using sections to navigate a page, they will just ignore the spec and flatten everything into the top of the hierarchy. So nobody uses them. (And yes, it shouldn't be a warning to use an h1 in a section with the default style either. They are just making a non-backwards-compatible change to the default style, fucking own it and have the old pages change.)
zcorpan 2y ago
This is already the case, the warning is only for h1 in article/aside/nav/section. I'll fix the article to make this clearer, thanks.

sfink 2y ago

The article seemed to repeatedly suggest that any <h1> without a font size set would be a warning, but reading more closely I'm pretty sure it's only talking about <h1> nested within <section> etc. (So I believe Lighthouse and Firefox are both already doing what you describe in the last sentence.)

alexpetros 2y ago
I'd love the article to clarify this, because it stuck out to me as well. But as you pointed out, I think that's what they meant: the lighthouse warning is called "H1UserAgentFontSizeInSection"
mjevans 2y ago
I still think even one within a section (or even div like nested sections) shouldn't be a warning... but I hadn't heard of <section> until today (seemingly it's been in browsers for decades, I just hadn't seen it USED anywhere) so I'm not sure if that implies something other than a logical structural block. From the context it seemed like a different type of div or span.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  "decades" I had to look it up, it's been 15 years apparently, with HTML5 being 17 years old... I quipped to my colleague that I'm still stuck at XHTML. Mind you, that's also because in 2008 we still had to support Internet Explorer 6.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  Sections are a very good idea for a tag that embedded a document in a lower hierarchy inside your document. The way that it should be from the beginning instead of having the global h1, h2... and hacking a structure out of them. But then screen readers universally decided that no, instead of using sections to navigate a page, they will just ignore the spec and flatten everything into the top of the hierarchy. So nobody uses them. (And yes, it shouldn't be a warning to use an h1 in a section with the default style either. They are just making a non-backwards-compatible change to the default style, fucking own it and have the old pages change.)

zcorpan 2y ago

This is already the case, the warning is only for h1 in article/aside/nav/section. I'll fix the article to make this clearer, thanks.