Re: Deprecating 4.1.1 - mapping

Alastair,
Can this be incorporated into the doc:
Reference: Tool authored by S. Faulkner that  filters all 4.1.1 issues
into accessibility / non-accessibility issues.
Parsing Bookmark for SC 4.1.1 
http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2012/02/wcag-2-0-parsing-error-bookmarklet/

I am a strong advocate of G134 - validating Web pages before doing
accessibility testing. It reduces the accessibility testing work if
code is valid.

Comments on Word doc:
Issue 1: Two interactive controls have the same id attribute value
which is used to associate label elements with the controls (using
for/id attributes)
Sailesh: It is an SC 1.3.1 issue, not 4.1.2 as info-relationships are
wrongly conveyed.
Issue 3: Two label elements have the same id attribute value which is
used to associate the label with interactive controls (using
aria-labelledby)
Sailesh: It is an SC 1.3.1 issue, not 4.1.2 as info-relationships are
wrongly conveyed.
Rationale for #3: In some cases, the specified behavior for browsers
is to use the first attribute. Evaluators would need to verify that
the correct label for the control is communicated to assistive
technologies.
Sailesh: That's where SC 4.1.1 kicks in- to make content robust i.e.
content behaves reliably across user agents / platforms.
Issue 2 and 4: where duplicate ID has no impact
Sailesh:It is an HTML validation issue with no impact on accessibility.

Issue 5: Duplicate roles
Sailesh: That's where SC 4.1.1 kicks in- to make content robust i.e.
content behaves reliably across user agents / platforms.

Issue 7: Improper nesting of form elements (interactive elements
nested in other interactive elements)
Sailesh: I agree. It also causes confusion and comprehension problems.
e.g. Heading inside a button etc.

Issue 10: Lack of closing tag.
Sailesh: It causes accessibility issues quite often. Screen readers
read invisible code / markup which makes content completely
incomprehensible. I have seen it in  mobile Web too.
One can say it is SC 1.3.2.

* For the shared doc: One suggestion: can the rows be numbered so they
can be referenced as Issue 1, Issue 2, ettc.
Thanks,
Sailesh



On 11/23/22, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Andrew and Ian made a great start on mapping 4.1.1 issues to other SCs
> (where appropriate).
>
> I think it would make good content for the understanding document.
>
> It would be useful to get some review whilst it is still very draft:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MJ6FxO7ujQ4X9BQtAnDDoWyvpAKU44MR4h-bob9SG7M/edit
>
> The document is open for comments, if you have some additions to make please
> let me know and I can provide edit access.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
> --
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com>
>
>
>


-- 
Sailesh Panchang
Customer Success Strategist and Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc
381 Elden Street, Suite 2000, Herndon,
VA 20170
Mobile: 571-344-1765

Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2022 17:45:42 UTC