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 10:11AM

Jon Brundage wrote:

> What is the definition of "programmatically determined" in your view?

Well, my view doesn't really matter much. :-) I've voiced concerns
over the ambiguity and difficulties with this term and its definition
since before 2.0 was finalized. Here's one reference from 2012
recommending that it be addressed in 2.1 -
https://webaim.org/blog/wcag-next/. But 2.1 did not entertain changes
to existing definitions or success criteria. Regardless, we do have a
normative definition of "programmatically determined" directly in WCAG
- https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-programmatically-determinable

If we look at the non-normative techniques for other success criteria
that use this term, they can provide some insight into what this term
means and what can be considered "programmatically determined". 1.3.1,
3.3.2, and 4.1.2, for example, all allow a form label or aria-label to
meet the "programmatically determined" requirements -
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H44.html. 2.4.4 allows aria-label
to meet the "programmatically determined" requirement for links -
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/ARIA8.html This is why the
suggestion that an accessible name or label is not sufficiently
"programmatically determined" when it comes to 1.3.5 is rather
concerning.

To be clear, I fully support the use of autocomplete and would always
recommend this as a best practice, but I think it requires a very
broad and creative interpretation of 1.3.5 to suggest that
autocomplete is essentially required.

Jared