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: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 13:34:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHVyjGPw3jr2HTdPz3bJkpJZXS_PTPr78EU0euVmcKCseEyzGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: 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>
Hi all,

It seems to me the text of this SC describes a symptom, not the actual
problem. The problem (as I understand it) is that assistive technologies
should have the same interpretation of the markup as web browsers do.
Because if they don't, this could lead to AT understanding the content
different from the way browsers understand it.

I think Andrew has a point about 1.3.1 and 4.1.2. I don't think his example
works quite right. But in practice, if there is a duplicate ID that affects
accessibility, it will cause either a problem in the relationship of an
element, or in it's accessible name. The same is true for duplicate
attributes and incorrect closing of tags actually.

It's much easier to say: Markup should be unambiguous, then to rely on
people understanding the subtle nuance of how the accessibility support
requirement works together with 1.3.1 and 4.1.2. That's effectively what
4.1.1 does. But it has all of these cases that don't affect a user, but
that are clearly violations of 4.1.1 as a result.

All things considered, I think 4.1.1 is overreaching. It makes sense to
have it, because it makes certain accessibility problems much easier to
understand, but trimming the scope of it makes a lot of sense to me.

Wilco




On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 12:11 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> >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
> >>>
> >>
> >
>



-- 
*Wilco Fiers* - Senior Accessibility Engineer

deque_logo_180p.gif
(image/gif attachment: deque_logo_180p.gif)

Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2016 11:35:17 UTC

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