RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1

Andrew,

That is the goal, but we do have 4.1.1, what is the option? 

Are you suggesting removing it? 

Because I am suggesting expanding it to clearly identify that it is not just applicable to HTML. But also to include ARIA, scripting, any way you build a web UI. 

And Yes, I think it is useful to have a "mistakes" option. If you tried to code it correctly but forgot something, left off the quote, forgot to close a table, it is almost better than a 4.1.2 error.

But in the end of it all, if we could, I could see combining these two SC in a Silver requirement. The fact is today we have it and cannot kill it for a 2.1 version.

​​​



* katie *
 
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
 
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 5:32 PM
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com; 'Alastair Campbell' <acampbell@nomensa.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1

I don’t think that we can presume knowledge or intent in the SC.  How can you possibly draw a line between mistakes made in code by someone who presumably knows what they are doing vs. an issue created by someone who doesn’t know what they are doing?

I can make a mistake in code when assigning a label or assigning alternative text:

<label for=“abc>Name</label><input type=“text">

<img src=“home.png” alt=“home>

Or I can omit a label or alt attribute:

Name <input type=“text">

<img src=“home.png”>

I’d call these 4.1.2 and 1.1.1 issues, respectively.  Sure, the first pair are also 4.1.1 issues, but does that make a difference?  If the issue is flagged as a problem so it can be addressed, isn’t that the goal?


Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility Adobe 

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk






On 10/3/16, 17:23, "Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL" <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:

>In the end they are.....but, one is about mistakes in code, the other is about not understanding what is needed to make information programmatically determinable (or usable by AT).
>
>​​​​​
>
>
>
>* katie *
> 
>Katie Haritos-Shea
>Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
> 
>Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile 
>| Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
>Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 5:21 PM
>To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; 
>jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com; 'Alastair Campbell' 
><acampbell@nomensa.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
>
>So Katie, are you saying that issues that are 4.1.1 issues are not 4.1.2 issues?
>
>Thanks,
>AWK
>
>Andrew Kirkpatrick
>Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility Adobe
>
>akirkpat@adobe.com
>http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 10/3/16, 17:03, "Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL" <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>So I really agree with Jon on this....in general I look at these two SC this way:
>>
>>-- 4.1.1 as Broken/Invalid Coding that Negatively Impacts AT, or, 
>>Broken code so AT can't use it
>>
>>
>>-- 4.1.2 as Incorrect Use of, or Missing, Code that makes it so that 
>>it is NOT programmatically determinable by AT, or, Missing code so 
>>that AT can't use it
>>
>>Does anyone else agree? 
>>
>>​​​​​
>>
>>
>>
>>* katie *
>> 
>>Katie Haritos-Shea
>>Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
>> 
>>Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile
>>| Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
>>Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 1:10 PM
>>To: jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com; Alastair Campbell 
>><acampbell@nomensa.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
>>
>>>We ran into a page on the desktop where a left quote was used on an attribute on the HTML element along with a matching straight quote.  A desktop assistive technology couldn't see the page content correctly.   The page looked fine.
>>
>>Fails 4.1.2
>>
>>>On Android we ran into an issue with TalkBack where a combo box was completely invisible in Firefox.  Turns out the first item in the option list had a blank value and no label attribute.  Blank values must have a label attribute to validate.  Adding the label attribute solved the issue.
>>
>>Fails 4.1.2
>>
>>>Some valid nested structures even cause screen reader issues such as when explicit labels contain links -- some AT still have issues with that but it's gotten better.
>>
>>Hard to tell, but sounds like 4.1.2.
>>
>>Any that cause problems that do not fail under any other SC?  :)
>>
>>AWK
>>
>

Received on Monday, 3 October 2016 21:41:38 UTC