Re: Idea for additional Level A criteria

Adding sub-criteria for tables, lists etc. is going round and round in
circles or chasing ones own tail: the basic requirement for WCAG 2.0
was : keep it technology-neuutral. Hence no reference to tables,
lists, headings etc. is made in 1.3.1.
I think drafting of 1.3.1 was challenging and  what we have is  not at
all bad. Sure it catches many many different types of
info-relation-structure issues.
The key missing requirement I have  argued for  a long time even
during making of WCAG 2.1 is a sort-of the opposite to  1.3.1:
Content that needs to be distinguished  should have distinct
presentational attributes. For instance  an alert that is added  or
the uupdate to count in a shopping cart needs to be instantly
noticeable.   Of course it should have markup to make it PD.
Requiring  presentation to make it noticeable helps users with
cognitive impairments as well as some low vision user groups.
Sailesh Panchang
Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc
381 Elden Street, Suite 2000, Herndon,
VA 20170
Mobile: 571-344-1765

On 4/30/21, Bruce Bailey <> wrote:
>> In my opinion it could be confusing to breakout specific requirements for
>> tables and structure while not breaking out specific criteria for lists,
>> heading, associating error messaging, etc.
> Yes, there will be some confusion.  There is also some confusion with having
> so much packed into 1.3.1, but we have kind of gotten used to that.  If we
> explore this option, yes, there would also need to be out specific criteria
> for lists, heading, associating error messaging, etc.  So that is
> through, etc.  Still, there will difficulty enumerating every
> situation current 1.3.1 is applied.  I also expect that care will be needed
> to avoid stepping on other SC.
>>  These items are already covered and this fact could be clarified by
>> better supporting materials rather than updating the standard.
> I agree that these items are already covered.  I agree that better
> supporting materials could add clarity.  I would still like for us to
> consider if updating the standard in this way could be of significant
> utility.
>>  The authors specifically choose to not create WCAG in this way and
>> changing it now opens up all sorts of questions for other SC like 4.1.2 as
>> well.
> My own recollection is that 1.3.1 was  very much a compromise, and that
> there was consensus was that it was good enough.  I do not remember if (or
> how much) we considered three decimal points.
> Jon, I love your suggestion to add sub-criteria to 4.1.2!
> With the Revised 508 Standards, we did get feedback that, for the context of
> assessing the accessibility of software, neither SC 1.3.1 nor 4.1.2 were not
> sufficiently comprehensive.  In my previous email, I linked to the first
> sub-provision under Revised 508 Standards provision 502.3.  There are of
> fourteen of those.  Several could be appropriate as sub-criteria under
> 1.3.1, and several others could appropriate as sub-criteria under 4.1.2.
> And probably a few are too difficult to implement in HMTL.
> Again, here the bookmark to 502.3.1 Object information.  But if this idea
> intrigues you, please go through the whole list, through to 502.3.14 Event
> Notification

Received on Friday, 30 April 2021 19:50:14 UTC