Re: 1.3.1 info and relationships

Hello Sarah,

Strictly speaking 1.3.1 only tells us to make relationships and structure
programmatically determinable if they are conveyed through presentation.
1.3.1 doesn't explicitly tell us to make sure we don't convey such
relationships and structure in a programmatically determinable way if such
relationships and structure is not conveyed through presentation.

However most auditors I know (inducing myself) state that if you clutter
the page with semantic information in your code that isn't presented
through presentation, then it's impossible to actually programmatically
determine those relationships and structures that are presented through
presentation.

So yes. If you would mark up text as a heading while the presentation
doesn't communicate that it is a heading I would mark it as a failure. I
believe that is both in the spirit and the leter of this SC.

Greetings,


*Brian Bors*

[image: Accessibility]

*www.accessibility.nl <https://www.accessibility.nl/>*


Op di 23 mrt. 2021 om 15:54 schreef Jonathan Avila <
jon.avila@levelaccess.com>:

>
>    - 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>
>