While I'm evaluating a site that uses copious text formatting and "tagline"-style text that appears above or below headings, I was struck that the summary text for 5.2 could be confusing or misleading to someone not very familiar with headings.
From Accessibility Insights
No missing headings
Text that looks like a heading must be coded as a heading.
I poked around the various WCAG standards and success criteria and didn't find similar language used there, so it would seem this should be open to revision.
Notably, when I'm training people about using headings, the #1 mistake people make is using headings to format text. The current text would seem to feed into that misconception if you don't understand why the check exists.
I would suggest that one of these two options would be much clearer and helpful when evaluating this check:
Text that labels a section of the page must be coded as a heading.
Text that visusally functions as a heading must be coded as a heading.
While I'm evaluating a site that uses copious text formatting and "tagline"-style text that appears above or below headings, I was struck that the summary text for 5.2 could be confusing or misleading to someone not very familiar with headings.
From Accessibility Insights
I poked around the various WCAG standards and success criteria and didn't find similar language used there, so it would seem this should be open to revision.
Notably, when I'm training people about using headings, the #1 mistake people make is using headings to format text. The current text would seem to feed into that misconception if you don't understand why the check exists.
I would suggest that one of these two options would be much clearer and helpful when evaluating this check: