Using Section Headings for Context, Approach, and Results as the Project Portfolio Grows

As your project portfolio expands, structuring individual case studies becomes critical for user navigation. This article addresses how to use section headings effectively to distinguish between project context, the approach taken, and the final results, ensuring that readers can quickly orient themselves within complex content.

Structuring Growing Case Studies with Clear Headings

Imagine a small services studio whose portfolio has outgrown a single scrolling page, now trying to draft a longer case study about a fictional retail client. The author sketches three heading candidates for the opening: “Context”, “The Client's Starting Point”, and “Where We Began”. Each would introduce the same short paragraph about a regional shop with inconsistent stock records across two locations, but they signal different reader promises—the first is neutral, the second emphasizes the client's situation, and the third implies a narrative journey. That choice is still open.

For the middle of the study, the author tries “Approach” against “Our Approach” and “How We Worked”. The draft material is a description of an inventory-count routine and a staff walkthrough. “Our Approach” repeats ownership already obvious from the page, while “How We Worked” sounds more like a diary than a method. “Approach” leaves room to describe the client's own participation, which the draft mentions but does not yet separate clearly.

The results section produces a similar tension: “Results”, “Outcomes”, and “What Changed”. The available material includes a before-and-after stock-count comparison and a note about reduced time spent reconciling records. “Results” could invite readers to expect labeled figures, but the draft currently offers only a short narrative. “What Changed” fits the narrative but may not help a reader scanning for measurable effects. The author has not decided whether to add a small metrics table or keep the section prose-only.

One further uncertainty sits outside these examples: the draft's three parts are not yet visually distinct, and a reader moving between studies may not notice where one section ends and the next begins. That question is left for later, once the wording is settled.

Defining Context Sections for New Projects

The available source is a W3C Web Accessibility Initiative tutorial on page structure, not a guide to case-study headings. It states that headings communicate page organization and that browsers, plug-ins and assistive technologies can use them for in-page navigation.¹

On ranking, the tutorial says the most important heading has rank 1 and the least important rank 6; equal or higher ranks start a new section, while lower ranks start subsections within the higher-ranked section. It advises avoiding skipped ranks where possible, giving an h2 followed directly by an h4 as an example, though skipping when closing subsections is acceptable.¹

It also addresses fixed page sections such as sidebars, where heading ranks should not change according to the content area, keeping consistency across pages. For visible headings, it suggests aria-labelledby to associate headings with page regions.¹

You can treat the context section as the place where a new reader learns enough about the fictional retail client to judge the rest of the study. One practical move is to pull the first two sentences of the draft into a separate note and ask what a reader must know before the approach makes sense: the client type, the starting situation, and why the work was commissioned. If the draft opens with “The client needed a better inventory process,” consider rewriting it as “The client, a small retailer, was counting stock by hand across two locations and wanted a repeatable weekly routine.” The second version gives the reader a setting and a reason to keep reading.

You might then compare a short context block with a longer one drawn from the same note. The longer block can mention the constraint that shaped the work, but only if later sections actually use it. If the approach paragraph never returns to the two-location issue, you can cut that detail now rather than leave the reader waiting for a payoff.

For each new project, you can record three plain answers before drafting: who the client was in general terms, what prompted the work, and what boundary limited it. These are your own working notes, not a required form. If an answer feels thin, you might move that project later in the portfolio and give the space to a study whose context you can state with confidence.

Outlining Approach Subsections in Detailed Cases

For the approach part of a detailed case, the documented guidance centers on giving each section a heading that identifies it. The technique applies to pages whose content is organized into sections, and its stated objective is to ensure that sections have headings identifying them. In HTML, authors can use the heading elements h1 through h6, which let user agents automatically identify section headings; other technologies use other methods for identifying headers.²

To support navigation and understanding of the overall document structure, the guidance says authors should use headings that are properly nested, such as an h1 followed by an h2, and an h2 followed by another h2 or an h3. A documented example uses an h1 element for the overall title, h2 elements for major sections, and h3 elements for sub-sections within them.²

Within the approach section, you can decide how many subsections your own material truly supports before naming any of them. Take your notes for one detailed case and group them by what the reader needs to follow: the initial situation, the sequence of decisions, and the point where the work changed direction. If two groups are thin, you might keep them as plain paragraphs under one “Approach” heading rather than inventing subsections that promise more than the notes contain.

For a worked example, suppose a draft has a long paragraph covering a stock-count review, a staff interview, and a revised ordering routine. You could split it into two labelled subsections, one for gathering information and one for changing the routine, leaving the interview inside the first. This is an author's demonstration, not a claim about how every case should read. You can compare that version with a single unbroken paragraph and keep whichever helps a reader locate the decision they care about.

Each subsection heading can also echo a phrase already used in your notes, so the label stays close to the evidence behind it. You might note the question each subsection answers, then check whether the heading makes that question recognizable without extra explanation.

Highlighting Results with Distinct Heading Levels

Headings convey a document's logical hierarchy, and the technique page warns that skipping levels can suggest the structure was not properly thought through or that headings were chosen for visual rendering rather than meaning. It encourages nesting headings hierarchically so the most important information gets the highest logical level and subsections receive subsequent levels, with an h2 as a subsection of an h1.³

The technique lists uses of heading markup that fit a results section: marking section headings within the main content area, marking up images of text used as headings, and letting users navigate a page by sections or skip repeated blocks. Because headings indicate the start of important sections, assistive technology users can jump directly to a heading and begin reading, which the page says significantly speeds interaction.³

For the results heading level, you can try a quick side-by-side before committing. Take your stock-count example and draft “Results” as a heading, then place the before-and-after figures directly under it. If the figures need a short lead-in sentence such as “stock counts fell from four per week to two,” you might prefer the plainer label because it signals that evidence follows rather than interpretation.

If a single result has two parts—say, fewer stockouts and less staff overtime—you could consider a second level. Write “Results” once, then two shorter headings beneath it, each paired with its own sentence and figure. That keeps a reader from scanning one dense block to find the numbers that matter.

You might also compare how the same label reads at a glance. Jot “Outcomes” above the two figures, then “Results,” and ask which one better matches what your material actually shows. If the draft contains measured changes, the plainer label tends to fit; if it describes a broader change in practice, a wider word may fit better. Either choice is yours to make, and noting the reason beside your draft can help you keep the same habit across future studies.

Maintaining Consistent Hierarchy Across Portfolio Pages

Use short headings to group related paragraphs and describe each section clearly, so the headings outline the page. For documents longer than three or four paragraphs, headings and subheadings support usability and accessibility, helping readers determine the overall outline and navigate to specific information.⁴

Heading levels run from one to six, with Level 1 often corresponding to the page title or major document section. Because visual differences in size or style are not a sufficient cue for assistive technology users, headings must be semantically tagged so they can be identified and used for navigation. Correct element use also conveys structural hierarchy to assistive technology and can make the document easier to edit.⁴

For the hierarchy question, you can start with your own heading outline rather than the page design. Take the headings you already drafted for one study and list them in order, marking which section each belongs to. Then ask, for each label, whether a reader arriving from a different study would place it at the same level. If “How We Worked” sits above a partner interview in one study, a similar partner interview should sit at that level in the next; where it does not, a short note recording why can guide your next revision.

You might also compare two studies side by side before settling on a level. Put the context heading from the retail study beside the context heading from another project and read only those two lines. If one sounds like a section label and the other like a sentence from the draft, consider shortening the longer one so both read as siblings. This is a choice you can make with matching names alone, without touching the body text.

The visual separation mentioned earlier is worth deciding alongside the labels. You could sketch, on paper, how “Context,” “Approach,” and “Results” would appear across two studies, then check whether the same kind of heading looks the same in both sketches. If one part needs a second level, mark it in the sketch and see whether the pattern still holds for the other study. Where it fails, you can either adjust the label or accept the difference and note it, since consistency here serves your reader's orientation, not a fixed rule.

Reviewing Heading Structure for Accessibility

For a growing portfolio, check that headings reflect actual section structure rather than visual styling. The guidance on section headings states that where content is organized into sections, those sections need headings that introduce them, and that visual presentation such as horizontal rules and boxes is not sufficient to identify document sections.⁵

Reviewing the draft's context, approach, and results headings against this criterion means confirming each section has a heading at its beginning. The listed sufficient techniques are organizing a page using headings and providing heading elements at the beginning of each section of content; both are techniques the Accessibility Guidelines Working Group deems sufficient for this criterion.⁵

Keep the criterion's scope in view: it covers sections within writing, not user interface components, and it is a Level AAA provision because it cannot be applied to all types of content. The guidance also notes that when posting a pre-existing document, headings the author did not include in the original cannot be inserted, and that a long letter covering different topics would not sensibly carry headings.⁵

A useful next step is to take your existing heading outline for one case study and read it aloud in sequence, without the body text, to hear whether the three parts sound distinct. You can mark each heading in your draft with a short note beside it saying which question it answers for a reader arriving midway: who the client is, what was done, or what changed. If two headings answer the same question, consider rewording one rather than adding a level.

You might also compare how the same outline reads when a heading is skipped in your own notes—for instance, writing “Context” then jumping straight to “Results” to see whether the gap feels abrupt. This is a drafting choice, not a fixed rule; you decide whether a transitional heading helps your material. Record the option you choose and why, so a later revision of the same study keeps the same pattern.

Frequently asked questions

How can I decide how many subsections my own approach material supports before naming them?

Within the approach section, you can decide how many subsections your own material truly supports before naming any of them. Take your notes for one detailed case and group them by what the reader needs to follow: the initial situation, the sequence of decisions, and the point where the work changed direction.

How should I start organizing my own headings for the hierarchy question?

For the hierarchy question, you can start with your own heading outline rather than the page design. Take the headings you already drafted for one study and list them in order, marking which section each belongs to.

What three plain answers can I record before drafting each new project?

For each new project, you can record three plain answers before drafting: who the client was in general terms, what prompted the work, and what boundary limited it. These are your own working notes, not a required form.