- From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:29:21 -0400
- To: "'David MacDonald'" <david100@sympatico.ca>, "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'Sailesh Panchang'" <spanchang02@yahoo.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <003201d21a66$42d8b350$c88a19f0$@gmail.com>
Clarifying that you asked for could be designed around *rendered* content, not hidden…
* katie *
Katie Haritos-Shea
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
Cell: 703-371-5545 | <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog
From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:01 AM
To: 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca>; 'Steve Faulkner' <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Sailesh Panchang' <spanchang02@yahoo.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
Or just make it part of 2.1, and improve the language to clearly cover other web technologies beyond HTML. I know of organizations that do not recognize ARIA as being an applicable technology under 4.1.1
* katie *
Katie Haritos-Shea
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
Cell: 703-371-5545 | <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog
From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:49 AM
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com <mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com> >
Cc: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com <mailto:spanchang02@yahoo.com> >; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
I also agree that this is what 4.1.1 SHOULD require.
But I think the language of the SC currently requires all id's in the DOM to be unique. I think we could justify a clarification (change) in the Understanding given that all the rational provided is about accessibility of components.
Perhaps add the sentence. What should the clarifying language be?
Cheers,
David MacDonald
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel: 613.235.4902
LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd>
<https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> GitHub
www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
Adapting the web to all users
Including those with disabilities
If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com <mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com> > wrote:
On 29 September 2016 at 15:01, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com <mailto:spanchang02@yahoo.com> > wrote:
So id values repeated in hidden content that are not referenced by any ARIA attribute do not need to be fixed strictly from an accessibility standpoint. Is this view accurate?
I agree with this.
--
Regards
SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2016 15:29:57 UTC