Hi Jim, 4.1.1 is not removed because code issues don’t matter. Actually quite some SCs depend on correct code, especially all that demand something must be programmatically determinable and of name, role value. So in my opinion it’s an unwelcome signal the WG gave by removing the SC entirely although I can understand the motivation. But: there still are SCs that have to be met, but not 4.1.1. But this SC was never meant to explicitly or exclusively fail aria misuse. In most cases these are role or value issues and they will still fail 4.1.2 And in cases where bad use of aria is conformant, we as testers can recommend better solutions to the problems developers want to address with aria. In many cases we can link to the aria rules starting with “Don’t use aria (until you have to)”… -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Marc Haunschild https://Accessibility.Consulting Am 25.10.2023 um 16:37 schrieb Jim Homme <jhomme@benderconsult.com>: 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/ Help end the shame of the stigma of mental health disabilities. https://benderleadership.org/notashamed/
Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2023 14:55:51 UTC