Re: 1.3.1 info and relationships

On 23/03/2021 23:07, Ms J wrote:
[...]
>  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?

To my mind, yes that's the issue. I would say 1.3.1 feels like it 
started with an underlying assumption that content was designed 
correctly visually, and its concern is that this is conveyed correctly 
in markup. There is no matching/opposite SC that wants to mandate/ensure 
how info/relationships/hierarchy/structure are visually conveyed (as 
that gets much harder to normatively define, as it starts getting into 
very fluffy visual design / usability / information architecture / taste 
and preference territories which really don't lend themselves to binary 
pass/fail type formulations.

>  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…


Yes. And the back and forth in this discussion is really down to the 
fact that sometimes, just sometimes, the line between 1. and 2. can get 
a bit fuzzy/blurry (exactly because it's not always evident when a 
particular structure in HTML is or isn't correct/reflective of the 
visual presentation). I think in the end we're all in general agreement, 
but argue over where the line in the sand is, exactly.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2021 00:08:41 UTC