W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

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

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 22:11:43 +0000
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, "jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com" <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, 'Alastair Campbell' <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B308B3FA-3D65-457C-A648-304B4D84228B@adobe.com>
>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.

No, not suggesting that at all.  For Silver we should take a good look, but it is what it is for 2.1, which is why I said "For now, I suspect that we may need to deal with 4.1.1 covering too much ground.” in an earlier email.

AWK


>
>​​​
>
>
>
>* 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 22:12:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:06 UTC