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

So Katie, are you saying that issues that are 4.1.1 issues are not 4.1.2 issues?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
Adobe 

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk







On 10/3/16, 17:03, "Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL" <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:

>So I really agree with Jon on this....in general I look at these two SC this way:
>
>-- 4.1.1 as Broken/Invalid Coding that Negatively Impacts AT, or,
>Broken code so AT can't use it
>
>
>-- 4.1.2 as Incorrect Use of, or Missing, Code that makes it so that it is NOT programmatically determinable by AT, or,
>Missing code so that AT can't use it
>
>Does anyone else agree? 
>
>​​​​​
>
>
>
>* katie *
> 
>Katie Haritos-Shea 
>Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
> 
>Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] 
>Sent: Monday, October 3, 2016 1:10 PM
>To: jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com; Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Question: testing for non-unique id values SC 4.1.1
>
>>We ran into a page on the desktop where a left quote was used on an attribute on the HTML element along with a matching straight quote.  A desktop assistive technology couldn't see the page content correctly.   The page looked fine.
>
>Fails 4.1.2
>
>>On Android we ran into an issue with TalkBack where a combo box was completely invisible in Firefox.  Turns out the first item in the option list had a blank value and no label attribute.  Blank values must have a label attribute to validate.  Adding the label attribute solved the issue.
>
>Fails 4.1.2
>
>>Some valid nested structures even cause screen reader issues such as when explicit labels contain links -- some AT still have issues with that but it's gotten better.
>
>Hard to tell, but sounds like 4.1.2.
>
>Any that cause problems that do not fail under any other SC?  :)
>
>AWK
>

Received on Monday, 3 October 2016 21:21:58 UTC