WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: To what degree does failure to convey structure violate 1.3.1 or other success criteria?

for

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Feb 6, 2018 8:00AM

>
> ON your first example, my understanding is that there are plans to
>
change the <address> definition so that it can be used more widely.


The address element definition has changed:

The address element represents contact information for a person, people or
> organization. It should include physical and/or digital location/contact
> information and a means of identifying a person(s) or organization the
> information pertains to.

https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/grouping-content.html#elementdef-address



--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;

On 6 February 2018 at 14:56, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
<EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> ON your first example, my understanding is that there are plans to
> change the <address> definition so that it can be used more widely.
> Maybe that's already true in HTML 5.2, unfortunately my browser/screen
> reader combos all crash when I try to load that page.
> Here is the MdN article:
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/address
>
> I think your reading of WCAG 1.3.1 is correct.
> If no information is communicated visually it doesn't have to be
> communicated programmatically.
> Accessibility is about equal access, if something is not marked up as
> a heading for anybody it's a usability issue, not an accessibility
> issue.
>
> You can still recommend to use the appropriate HtML for the job for
> other benefits, and you could try to argue that 4.1.1 applies to some
> degree, though I think that is an overly liberal interpretation.
> And 4.1.2 is the catch all accessibility SC that we can use when all else
> fails.
> I also agree with you that 2.4.6 is one of the weakest success
> criteria. I"m not even sure if an empty heading violates 2.4.6.
> I've not used it often and I've ended up in long discussions with
> other experts in situations where I have.
> I like the intension and with a stronger set of technique examples,
> e.g. creaing a failure techniques under 24.6 for an empty heading
> element, this could be <addressed>.
> heading as a fila b
>
> On 2/6/18, Robert Fentress < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> > To what degree is conveying information and relationships a required
> thing
> > under WCAG Success Criteria (SC) 1.3.1 Info and Relationships
> > <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#qr-content-
> structure-separation-programmatic>
> > ?
> >
> > As a reminder, that SC reads, "Information, structure, and relationships
> > conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are
> > available in text."
> >
> > A strict reading of the text of 1.3.1 seems to indicate that the issue is
> > not *whether* information and relationships are conveyed, but rather that
> > any information and relationships that are *conveyed through
> presentation*
> > are also conveyed semantically or with text. An example of something
> that
> > you might think violates 1.3.1 but that, if you just look at the plain
> > words in the SC, is *not* wrong is when the <address> tag is used to mark
> > up any old address, when, semantically, it should only used to define the
> > contact information for the author/owner of a document. So, the tag is
> > used incorrectly there, but there is nothing in the presentation that
> > suggests this. Would this violate 1.3.1?
> >
> > Similarly, I have always thought that using asterisk characters to denote
> > bulleted lists violated 1.3.1, but, since the info and relationships are
> > "available in text" through the use of the asterisk character, one could
> > argue SC 1.3.1 is not violated.
> >
> > Another possible candidate that might catch this sort of thing is SC
> 2.4.6
> > Headings and Labels
> > <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#qr-navigation-mechanisms-
> descriptive>,
> > which reads, "Headings and labels describe topic or purpose." Would
> > information about the type of element that is being exposed count as a
> > "label" under this success criteria? Reading the Understanding 2.4.6
> page
> > <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/navigation-mechanisms-
> descriptive.html>
> > makes
> > clear they are not only referring to the <label> HTML element, but I find
> > it a little squishy, based on the wording there and the rather anemic
> > techniques listing, what *exactly* that term entails.
> >
> > Finally, it is possible that SC 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value
> > <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/ensure-compat-rsv.html>;
> might be
> > violated by this sort of thing, since it requires that the name and role
> be
> > programmatically determined. However, this only applies to user
> interface
> > components, which lists and addresses are not.
> >
> > Another note: If we *do* decide to interpret SC 1.3.1 or SC 2.4.6 more
> > liberally to include incorrect or inadequate semantic encoding, where do
> we
> > draw the line in terms of marking something as technically violating a
> > criterion? Does a failure to use definition lists, where appropriate, or
> > using unordered lists instead, count as a violation? How about <dfn> or
> > <cite>? Where do we draw the line?
> >
> > If you've gotten this far, you obviously have too much time on your hands
> > and should get back to work (winky face)! But, seriously, I'd appreciate
> > the community's thoughts on the matter. I feel like I might be missing
> > something obvious.
> >
> > Best,
> > Rob
> >
> > --
> > Rob Fentress
> > Senior Accessibility Solutions Designer
> > Assistive Technologies at Virginia Tech
> > Electronic Business Card (vCard)
> > <http://search.vt.edu/search/person.vcf?person54847>
> > LinkedIn Profile
> > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rob-fentress-aa0b609?trk=profile-badge>
> > > > > > > > > >
>
>
> --
> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> > > > >