RE: Question About Removing 4.1.1 From WCAG 2.2

I could be wrong, but I believe ARIA misuse always falls under a different SC depending on the specific misuse. 4.1.1 is just for whether the document parses as valid HTML.

For instance, something like 4.1.2 would make sense if ARIA is giving something the wrong role. If ARIA is used to label something, but the attribute is incorrect, such as "aria-labl", that would fail because the element wouldn't have a valid label at all.

From: Jim Homme <jhomme@benderconsult.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 07:30
To: Wai Interest Group (w3c-wai-ig@w3.org) <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Question About Removing 4.1.1 From WCAG 2.2

Hi,
Now that this criterion has been removed from 2.2, if we encounter a site that we know uses ARIA heavily, and we know it has behavior that indicates ARIA misuse, how do we who are testers help developers deal with these issues?

==========
Jim Homme: He, Him, His
Senior Digital Accessibility Consultant
Bender Consulting Services
412-787-8567
https://www.benderconsult.com/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.benderconsult.com/__;!!C5qS4YX3!EmxmDYixBE6bo-hoD-TOApmuBxstuIeFf_lT51Car6kRCVZIs3g5O5hMwPOi1cEgtMIE1j3WGBmkVyA5IxV-ag$>
Help end the shame of the stigma of mental health disabilities. https://benderleadership.org/notashamed/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/benderleadership.org/notashamed/__;!!C5qS4YX3!EmxmDYixBE6bo-hoD-TOApmuBxstuIeFf_lT51Car6kRCVZIs3g5O5hMwPOi1cEgtMIE1j3WGBmkVyDvtsvNNg$>