Re: What is a failure of 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose?

David MacDonald wrote:
> I would not pass something that is not accessibility supported.
> "... the Success Criteria require that something be done in the Web 
> content that would make it possible for assistive technologies to 
> successfully present the content's information to the user. "
> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head
>
> I understand in Silver there is a proposal to change this and to move 
> to a more standards based approach where everybody builds to the 
> standard and if the AT or Browsers don't do their part then it still 
> passes. But that is not WCAG, which requires that conforming 
> techniques work with the AT and the browsers which are depended upon 
> for conformance. WCAG 2.0 requires real world current benefit to users 
> rather than an aspirational hope that something will happen in the 
> future with an SC. WCAG SCs for 2.0 were not created with the "build 
> it and they will come" approach although this 2.1 SC starts to hint in 
> that direction.
I hear what you are saying David - but we are in a chicken and egg 
scenario here - so I think it is reasonable to add meta data that 
supports a personalisation path (that will hopefully get adopted by AT 
vendors/browsers etc) but may not yet be broadly supported.

Thanks

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie