RE: 1.3.1 info and relationships

  *   For example, if text visually appears no different from the surrounding text but has been spuriously marked up as a heading or table or within a landmark implying it serves a semantic purpose that it does not, would this also fail 1.3.1?

I would say yes - because the presentation doesn't appear to be a data table yet the markup communicates that - so the two are at odds and the presentation does not match the semantics.

Jonathan

From: Ms J <ms.jflz.woop@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:39 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: 1.3.1 info and relationships

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,

Is 1.3.1 specifically focused on the visual presentation of the page or is it more focused on the semantics in the page?

I can see that visual presentation is often an easy way to provide semantic context, but there are other ways that the semantics within the page may be incorrect.

Specifically, the failure F43 which talks about 'using structural markup in a way that does not represent relationships in the context' specifies that it applies 'when structural markup is used to achieve a presentational effect, but indicates relationships that do not exist in the content'

So my question is, does this incorrect structural mark-up have to 'achieve a presentational effect' for this failure to apply? I would have thought it didn't, but I wanted to confirm. Could that description be amended to: 'when structural markup is used but indicates relationships that do not exist in the content'


For example, if text visually appears no different from the surrounding text but has been spuriously marked up as a heading or table or within a landmark implying it serves a semantic purpose that it does not, would this also fail 1.3.1?


Thanks


Sarah

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>