RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1

> Normative changes can’t be made in the Understanding document...
+1 
JF 
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org> Date: 9/30/16  2:11 AM  (GMT+01:00) To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> Cc: jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1 


 
 




From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]


Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 6:32 PM








 I don't think the phrase "...in content USING markup languages..."  is the same as "In markup content ..."
[Jason] Agreed.


 


I agree 4.1.1 is wider than it needs to be, and we should definitely adjust it for 2.1. There might be an argument to manage it in 2.0 via our interpretation in the understanding, if we can overcome Jason's concern.



 
[Jason] Normative changes can’t be made in the Understanding document, and I think this would require a normative change, not an interpretation.
Another concern arises from the implications for Web Annotations, a technology that has already been considered as a potential accessibility tool by those working on
 digital publishing standards. Third parties could annotate content with information that enhances accessibility for the user. If changes to the markup then break the annotations due to syntactic invalidity, it’s hard to see this as a failure of the content
 to meet other success criteria in WCAG, since the annotations that improve accessibility are provided externally.
An example from digital publishing discussions is that of offering annotations that associate tactile graphics, extended descriptions, etc., with graphics occurring in
 a book. (Some of these would move beyond what Guideline 1.1 requires, so the book could still be WCAG-conformant in itself.)
It may be infeasible to require content authors not to invalidate annotations, but maintaining a basic level of syntactic correctness seems more reasonable and achievable
 while having demonstrable benefits.
The use of external annotations to enhance the accessibility of content hasn’t seen much success so far; but COGA, digital publishing and other developments may be about
 to introduce entirely new classes of accessibility techniques that we’ll need to consider. For example, WCAG makes no provision for the use of haptics, tactile graphics, 3D models, simplified images or simplified descriptions as alternatives to images, but
 all of these have received serious discussion in digital publishing and educational contexts.
 






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.