Re: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1

Yes it is a false positive if same id does mmot occur at same time on the page.  FPs occur for other SCs too so all need to be addressed by 2.1? 

Sailesh. ...Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 18, 2016, at 8:34 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On 18/07/2016 13:24, Joshue O Connor wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I have a client which uses multiple IDs in their UI widgets - these IDs
>> are 'active' at different times for different reasons depending where
>> the user is within a 'flow'. It hasn't demonstrated any a11y problems,
>> but is technically a fail of SC 4.1.1.
> 
> I would think that in older AT (which takes a copy of the DOM/scrapes the source) this may have caused a problem. But in modern scenarios (where the information is obtained via the accessibility tree/API) this sort of dynamic change of whatever the element with a particular id is should be fine. I can also confirm that I've not seen any actual problems with these sorts of things (where two elements have same id, but one is always display:none'd for instance) in practice.
> 
>> My client is doing really good work in terms of their a11y approach, and
>> I really don't want to fail them on this. But these 'errors' are called
>> out by automated tools, and will be visible to anyone else testing the
>> site. I just can't say they have resulted in a problem at all.
>> 
>> What would you guys/gals do? Do this also represent a 'false negative'
>> that we should address in 2.1 or Silver?
> 
> It's definitely a false positive in my book, and a good example of where tools which simply analyze the source (rather than the actual DOM tree) will struggle.
> 
> P
> -- 
> Patrick H. Lauke
> 
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>

Received on Monday, 18 July 2016 12:49:51 UTC