WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Nu HTML Checker

for

From: Max ability
Date: Aug 10, 2021 7:22AM

The reason anyone use the HTML markup validation service for accessibility
testing is to test for 4.1.1 parsing. One set of a11y professionals say the
4 tests
a. Finding duplicate attributes for elements
b. Finding duplicate Id values
c. Improper opening and closing of elements
d. Nesting according to specifications.

These 4 items can be easily identified with other tests the consultants.
Eg: Screen readers testing can identify the improper opening and closing of
elements and some parts of nesting of elements.
Automation tools can identify duplication of id values and improper
structure of elements as per specifications etc.
May be you may want to run some samples to see how much worth it brings in
performing HTML validation just to find parsing issues.
Regards
Rakesh

On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 4:30 PM Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
<EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> The NG attributes come with Angular, nothing we can do about them. If
> Angular really wanted to adhere to HTML, those should start with
> "data-" but coding frameworks are sadly notoriously bad about
> producing semantically valid//accurate HTML.
> Fortunately, in this case, these attributes are harmless, as our
> fellow listers have already pointed out.
>
>
> On 8/9/21, Michael H < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> > Thank you for the help Glen!
> >
> > You folks are awesome!
> >
> > I will do a manual inspection. "Message filtering" is a much better view
> to
> > look at.
> >
> > Thanks again to you and Steve. I will be forwarding this thread to my QA
> > member for them to reference as well.
> >
> > I'll be back if I have more questions. Much appreciated!
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 1:22 PM glen walker < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> wrote:
> >
> >> A bookmarklet or other filtering tool for the NU results would be nice
> but
> >> I'm not sure I'd trust the results. As Steve said, it might not fully
> >> filter, and I'd be worried it filtered too much. But I understand
> there's
> >> a lot of "noise" in the parsing results. Technically, 4.1.1 only lists
> >> four types of parsing errors, but some of the other parsing errors can
> >> point out accessibility issues. For example, parsing can find IDs that
> >> don't exist such as an aria-labelledby pointing to an ID that is
> >> misspelled
> >> or incorrectly pointing to the NAME attribute. Those aren't technical
> >> WCAG
> >> 4.1.1 errors but they are accessibility issues that would hopefully be
> >> caught when you're looking for 4.1.2 issues. A 4.1.1 filtering
> >> bookmarklet
> >> might filter those results out since they're not one of the four
> mentioned
> >> in the SC but I wouldn't want those filtered out.
> >>
> >> I find that a manual inspection of the results works best (for me). I
> use
> >> the "message filtering" option of the NU results which helps to group
> >> items
> >> together and makes it much easier to go through.
> >>
> >> But I'm digressing from the original question about NG attributes and
> >> agree
> >> with Steve that they can be ignored.
> >> > >> > >> > >> > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
>
>
> --
> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> > > > >