RE: Subgroups proposal for support personalization and important request from coga

1.3.1 solves part of the problem, but it is at least arguable that information supplied in text or images is not “conveyed through presentation” in the sense which is relevant to that criterion. I think 4.1.2 addresses the concern about user interface components to a considerable extent, but that “name” and “role” fall short of formally (in a way that can be programmatically determined) specifying the purpose or function of a component. I think what we ultimately need is a provision which states, in effects, that where accessibility-supported markup or metadata formats are available to convey information expressed in text, sounds or images, or to convey the purpose of interactive user interface components, such formats are used to enhance the accessibility of the content according to their specifications.

This contains echoes of WCAG 1 with respect to the use of markup languages according to specification, but it’s much narrower in scope, applying only to accessibility-enhancing formats designed to achieve specific purposes.

From: Wayne Dick []
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 4:37 PM
To: Alastair Campbell <>
Cc: W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org <>
Subject: Re: Subgroups proposal for support personalization and important request from coga

To All,
Yes, we have a gap in HTML and ARIA. How much can we fix in one week.
Is there one item we can isolate that needs semantic that can be added, is technology independent (in the 2.1 sense). I am thinking that disambiguate div elements is the place.
The problem with ARIA is that people only think of it as contributing to the accessibility API, not just providing semantic support. That is what personalization requires.

Am I way off?

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Alastair Campbell <<>> wrote:
Hi Wayne,

I think the problem is that (for the context / conventional elements at least) they don’t have native semantics (so not 1.3.1), and elements like links already have a role and a name, value doesn’t match, so they are not covered by role/name/value either.



From: Wayne<>]

> What we are proposes really appears to be cases of 1.3.1 that were not covered in previous iterations of the techniques.


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.


Received on Tuesday, 18 July 2017 20:52:48 UTC