RE: Question on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers

+1 to Jason's comments.  We pass/fail on those 4 specific items.  Other items that fail validation often fail other SC (in my experience).



Regards,

Vivienne Conway, Ph.D., B.IT (Hons), MACS CP, AALIA(CS)
Director

Please be advised that I check my emails at approximately 9am and 4pm each day (more or less).  If you require assistance sooner, please feel free to telephone.


Web Key IT Pty Ltd
PO BOX 681 Wanneroo, WA 6946
Phone: (08) 9206 3987
Mobile    0415 383 673   
Facsimile   (08) 9325 6422

E      v.conway@webkeyit.com 
W    www.webkeyit.com 




This communication, including any attachments, is intended solely for the named addressee. It is confidential and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me immediately by reply email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. This email is subject to copyright, no part of it should be reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the prior written consent of the copyright owner. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Web Key IT Pty Ltd.


-----Original Message-----
From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, 13 January 2016 1:52 AM
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Question on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers


> On Jan 12, 2016, at 12:28, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Do we as the Working Group consider 4.1.1 Parsing to include ONLY the 4 specific examples identified in the Success Criteria, or, do we believe that 4.1.1 Parsing to includes those 4 examples plus other things where parsing failures might affect AT?  (I know that a doctype declaration is NOT a parsing failure).

I think the language of 4.1.1 is clear: anything which meets the four stated requirements thereby satisfies the success criterion. This might be enough to satisfy lawyers and others concerned with the accuracy of conformance claims, but there may be cases of markup which is not well formed in ways that create accessibility barriers, without breaching 4.1.1. Are you aware of any good examples?

It’s also possible that the problems with the markup result in a failure to meet a different success criterion than 4.1.1 if they yield access issues for AT users. Thus I would suggest checking for failures elsewhere in WCAG that are induced by the shortcomings in the markup.


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________

Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2016 00:20:59 UTC