Re: 4.1.1 Parsing in WCAG 2.0 and 2.1

Hi Brooks,

There has been a lot of discussion on this, not just recently for the WCAG 2.0/2.1 aspect, but whilst we were discussing it for WCAG 2.2.

Just as a starting point, this is the most commented thread on github:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2525

A key point from that thread is that: The people that have been finding it useful are probably reading more into it than was intended.

For example, it was not intended to cover the “content model” of HTML. (E.g.  a div nested in a span wouldn’t fail the SC, even though it fails validation.) If that is a surprise, please read that github thread above.

> there seems to be no agreement amongst the essential components of accessibility<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2Ffundamentals%2Fcomponents%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C0565d942a58a4034fb7c08db21a51390%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638140765107495878%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9ozpegZZGhpQm2hmExtvvamhWeDGdUHKEAZSUi4ieY8%3D&reserved=0> to follow a common set of rules.
Browsers have taken care of something so authors don’t have to. That’s a good thing.

> Diminishing the robustness of expensive, time consuming code-correct accommodations we on this list try do every day to support access to people with disabilities gives me great pause.

That’s not something we’re trying to do. We’ve been through a mapping exercise<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MJ6FxO7ujQ4X9BQtAnDDoWyvpAKU44MR4h-bob9SG7M/edit>, anything actually helpful to people with disabilities can be picked up under 1.3.1, 4.1.2, 2.1.1, or 1.1.1.

4.1.1 was always an odd SC in WCAG 2.0 because it was so closely tied to the technical implementation. I can appreciate that made it simpler to understand and test in some ways, but it also dated quickly.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

@alastc / www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com>