WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG 2.1 - 1.3.5 - How to capture a violation?

for

From: Jared Smith
Date: Jul 25, 2018 8:15AM

I'm still really confused by what you are suggesting. Again, where
does this success criterion state or suggest that accessible name
(e.g., <label>, aria-label, etc.) cannot be used to convey the
purpose?

1.3.1 allows (or nearly requires) that accessible name be used to
ensure that "information, structure, and relationships... can be
programmatically determined", so I can't see how 1.3.5, which requires
that "the purpose... can be programmatically determined" (nearly
identical wording), would prohibit this technique. "Programmatically
determined" can't mean two entirely different things for different
success criteria.

> The accessible name is generally not seen to fall into that category because of localization and other issues make prevent it from clearly aligning without ambiguity.

Where does the success criterion indicate or suggest that the purpose
has to be determined independent of localization or unambiguously? If
programmatically determined means "determined independent of
language", then it must also mean this in 1.3.1 (and elsewhere), which
would mean that all accessible names (if this was the chosen technique
for 1.3.1) would have to be language independent.

If the intent of this SC is to ensure that the purpose be identified
universally and unambiguously in all languages via some mechanism
other than accessible name, then it needs to be significantly edited
to indicate this. As is stands now, I see no way in which an
accessible name that conveys the purpose of the field would not be
sufficient to meet the normative text. If I'm wrong, I'm going to need
a much clearer explanation of how "programmatically determined" means
something different here than for the rest of WCAG.

Jared