RE: Is Common Failure Technique F87: inserting non-decorative content by using ::before and ::after pseudo-elements; still valid?

It's still a valid success criterion. If you want to use CSS content, you just need to state that CSS is a "relied-on technology" in your accessibility statement.

In the UK, it is a requirement that all central government websites are usable without CSS, JavaScript or images. You can read their rationale at https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/technology/using-progressive-enhancement#do-not-assume-users-turn-off-css-or-javascript. But even if you don't agree with it, you still need to comply with it if you're building government websites.

I expect most people would agree that CSS content is an "accessibility supported technology" insofar as it is supported by the screen readers you mentioned. However, that does not mean it is supported by all text-to-speech applications such as more basic screen readers or literacy software. Nor does WCAG require an accessibility supported technology to be supported by every user agent. But the more technologies that are relied on, the more likely it is that some people will not be able to access the content.

Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd


From: Bristow, Alan <Alan.Bristow@elections.ca>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 7:34 PM
To: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>; WAI Interest Group discussion list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Is Common Failure Technique F87: inserting non-decorative content by using ::before and ::after pseudo-elements; still valid?

I assume one reason it is(?) still valid is because of the people who disable all site-provided CSS and replace it all with their own CSS, designed to alleviate some visual requirement of theirs.

But. Although that would explain it still being valid, I have no idea if that is a theoretical edge-case that never actually happens, or, if it is a technique in use and hence F87 must remain valid.

Regards,

Alan

. . . . -   . . - - -
Alan Bristow ( he / him / il )
Web Developer / Développeur Web
Elections Canada / Élections Canada
alan.bristow@elections.ca<mailto:alan.bristow@elections.ca>

________________________________
From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com<mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com>>
Sent: 15 March 2024 14:51
To: WAI Interest Group discussion list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>>
Subject: Is Common Failure Technique F87: inserting non-decorative content by using ::before and ::after pseudo-elements; still valid?

Ce message a été envoyé par un expéditeur externe. Veuillez faire preuve de prudence et ne pas cliquer sur les liens ou ouvrir les pièces jointes à moins de reconnaître l'expéditeur et de savoir que le contenu est sûr.

This message was sent from an external sender. Please exercise caution and do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.



Regarding the WCAG 2.2 Technique F87:

Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.1 due to inserting non-decorative content by using ::before and ::after pseudo-elements and the 'content' property in CSS

https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Techniques/failures/F87



  1.  Does anyone agree that F87 is no longer a valid failure technique?

     *   Quote: "A common way to test [this criterion]* is to disable CSS styles to view whether content added using pseudo-elements remains visible." Who in 2024 disables CSS anymore (and why)?  Disabling CSS and JavaScript is not a valid "disability" test in my opinion.
     *   JAWS and free screen readers VoiceOver and NVDA support reading the content, including non-decorative content.
     *   Quote: "...they may not be able to access the information that is inserted using CSS" is not explained why this is still valid even when users load their own CSS.  If they load their own CSS, they are not disabling CSS & JavaScript.

  1.  Can anyone provide a web example where this "testing technique" would uncover a real accessibility problem?



The text "this critiera" is a typo on the W3C WAI page.