Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and How? - and SVG

thanks Alastair, I looked back on what i wrote here
https://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/11/wcag-2-0-parsing-criterion-is-a-pita/#further

and indeed I don't/didn't consider mispelled attributes of any kind as a
WCAG 2.0 parsing error, but they are a HTML conformance error. But
duplicate attributes and attributes without any whitepsace are.

--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>

On 1 February 2016 at 12:44, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> The original question was on the narrowness of 4.1.1, it includes 4 items,
> and that wouldn’t include a mis-spelled ARIA attribute. Many (most?) people
> agreed it only covered those 4 items.
>
> So a dodgy ARIA attribute might be a validation failure in HTML, but isn’t
> an accessibility issue according to WCAG 2.
> (It seems like it should be, but is only  caught by not working for 1.3.1
> / 4.1.2.)
>
> -Alastair
>
>
> From: "faulkner.steve" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, 1 February 2016 at 12:32
> To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <
> ryladog@gmail.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Question #2 on 4.1.1 Parsing - what it covers - ARIA? and
> How? - and SVG
>
> Apologies if I am being dense but I am a little flummoxed as to how any
> attributes used in HTML are not included in the parsing criteria. HTML
> defines how ARIA attributes are to be used in HTML as it does for a host of
> other features from other specs, what is the issue?
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> Current Standards Work @W3C
> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>
>
> On 1 February 2016 at 11:28, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
>> David MacDonald wrote:
>> > Strictly speaking malformed aria would be limited to 1.3.1, or 4.1.2
>> (or perhaps 1.1.1 on image or
>> >  input name messups.)
>> > Not what I would want... would love to include in 4.1.1 but it is not
>> specified there. Wai-aria wasn't around yet.
>>
>> I think it’s clear that a mis-spelled attribute (e.g. ARIA) would affect
>> ATs in a similar way to a mis-spelled HTML tag, so ideally we could add to
>> or change the SC so that “elements *and attributes* are complete and
>> nested according to their specifications”.
>>
>> Not sure how given the process, but it would be helpful.
>>
>> I agree that it would trigger issues under 4.1.2 so it is not a
>> catastrophic issue, but as Gregg said "4.1.1 was intended to protect AT
>> against errors  (or sloppy code practices)”. ARIA is exactly the sort of
>> thing a developer wouldn’t notice as it isn’t visually apparent in regular
>> browsers, so it would fit better there.
>>
>> Jason mentioned that ARIA was "was around and under active development
>> from 2004-2008”. It was around as a spec, but it was not implemented widely
>> enough for there to be evidence of those type of errors affecting ATs,
>> which was the basis for things included in 4.1.1.  I think there is now.
>>
>> -Alastair
>>
>
>