- From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 17:40:59 -0400
- To: "'Andrew Kirkpatrick'" <akirkpat@adobe.com>, <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, "'Alastair Campbell'" <acampbell@nomensa.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Andrew, That is the goal, but we do have 4.1.1, what is the option? Are you suggesting removing it? Because I am suggesting expanding it to clearly identify that it is not just applicable to HTML. But also to include ARIA, scripting, any way you build a web UI. And Yes, I think it is useful to have a "mistakes" option. If you tried to code it correctly but forgot something, left off the quote, forgot to close a table, it is almost better than a 4.1.2 error. But in the end of it all, if we could, I could see combining these two SC in a Silver requirement. The fact is today we have it and cannot kill it for a 2.1 version. * 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 5:32 PM To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; 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 I don’t think that we can presume knowledge or intent in the SC. How can you possibly draw a line between mistakes made in code by someone who presumably knows what they are doing vs. an issue created by someone who doesn’t know what they are doing? I can make a mistake in code when assigning a label or assigning alternative text: <label for=“abc>Name</label><input type=“text"> <img src=“home.png” alt=“home> Or I can omit a label or alt attribute: Name <input type=“text"> <img src=“home.png”> I’d call these 4.1.2 and 1.1.1 issues, respectively. Sure, the first pair are also 4.1.1 issues, but does that make a difference? If the issue is flagged as a problem so it can be addressed, isn’t that the goal? Thanks, AWK Andrew Kirkpatrick Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility Adobe akirkpat@adobe.com http://twitter.com/awkawk On 10/3/16, 17:23, "Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL" <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote: >In the end they are.....but, one is about mistakes in code, the other is about not understanding what is needed to make information programmatically determinable (or usable by AT). > > > > > >* 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 5:21 PM >To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; >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 > >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 21:41:38 UTC