Re: Should techniques move to HTML5?

Mike,
Completely separate from whether we believe that adherence to web standards is the right way to go (I do, and I believe that the WCAG group members agree) is the fact that WCAG is written to be technology independent so expresses criteria in a way that doesn’t require that authors follow the published spec.  What is required is that the content created can meet the identified accessibility needs.

So, the question here is whether the table relationships are expressed to assistive technology users, and as it turns out with VoiceOver on the Mac and Firefox/NVDA you can create code with validation errors that meets the requirements.  Of course, you may want to have more data about other browser/AT combinations to determine if you can really rely on it, but as far as meeting 1.3.1 for table headings this works.

We may want to consider an approach in the future where we make a change that pushes authors more explicitly to utilize defined accessibility features as the means to meet success criteria, but for now this is what we have.

I suspect that the technique needs to remain largely unchanged, although we should make some changes to H63.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

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

http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility


From: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com<mailto:melledge@yahoo.com>>
Reply-To: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com<mailto:melledge@yahoo.com>>
Date: Friday, December 18, 2015 at 12:37
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Should techniques move to HTML5?

Hi Andrew, all--

It seems that deprecation in HTML5 is straightforward and means it shouldn't be used, even if it is supported by AT.

Maybe I don't understand the distinction between it being an HTML5 vs. a WCAG issue, though...

Mike


On Friday, December 18, 2015 12:27 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:


It’s a good point Jon.

I tried an HTML5 file with td’s with scope (http://awkawk.github.io/table_td_scope_5.html) and found that at least on OSX that the scope attribute is honored.  I’m not sure how other combinations deal with this…

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk

http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility


From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>>
Date: Friday, December 18, 2015 at 11:03
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Should techniques move to HTML5?

Ø  HTML5 explicitly disallows the use of scope on TD elements.

I think the first question we need to agree on is whether  td with a scope in HTML5 is or is not a WCAG 2 violation.  If we see it as a violation then I would propose adding in a comment that this would not be a failure under HTML 4/XHTML.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
703.637.8957 (o)
Follow us: Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/#!/ssbbartgroup> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/#!/SSBBARTGroup> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog> | Newsletter<http://eepurl.com/O5DP>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 10:47 AM
To: WCAG
Subject: Should techniques move to HTML5?

Hey, we received a new issue from Mark Rogers (https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/127) which notes an issue in F91.  F91 includes an allowance for a table header to be identified with <td scope=“col”> but HTML5 explicitly disallows the use of scope on TD elements.

We could:

  1.  Add in "(HTML4 and XHTML only)” for the line in the procedure that allows for this
  2.  Change the entire technique to HTML5 and removing the TD scope line in the procedure.
  3.  Make a new, very similar failure for HTML5 that removes the TD scope line.

I’m sure that we aren’t interested in encouraging TD with scope, but as a failure we need to be careful.

What do people think?  Is there a downside to adapting this and other techniques to HTML5, even if it means losing some HTML4 content?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk

http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility