Re: 1.3.1 info and relationships

Hi all,

Thank you for the info on this everyone, it is really helpful and I totally agree. I think that because F43 specifies a reason authors may have used incorrect semantic mark-up (i.e., ‘to achieve a presentational effect’), if read very literally, this can be interpreted as a proviso for the failure to apply (i.e., ‘there is programmatically determinable semantic markup which does not reflect the true information, structure and relationships conveyed visually within the content and this markup has a presentational effect’), which is what caused confusion in the conversation I had today. It seems to me that the ‘presentational effect’ is incidental in that it is not failing because of the visual effect, rather that the only real purpose in mentioning it is to make the point that the effect is not that of providing any additional semantic context. But I am happy now that you have all confirmed that if there is mismatch between the information, structure and relationships conveyed through presentation and the semantic markup, then that fails.

Another thing I also feel makes these conversations confusing is that if the inverse problem is ‘There is programmatically determinable information/structure/relationships which is not conveyed visually’, then there are two distinct branches to this…

  1.  Where the programmatically determinable information/structure/relationships is/are valid, in which case I feel like 1.3.1 doesn’t cover this, as semantics don’t have to be conveyed through presentation?
  2.  As in the case we are discussing this thread, where the programmatically determinable information/structure/relationships is/are not valid and do not reflect the true relationships within the content, in which case I feel like 1.3.1 then does apply because the true information/structure/relationships within the content are really what is conveyed within the presentation…

Thanks again for all your responses!

Sarah