WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Relationship between WCAG and the ARIA in HTML specification

for

From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Aug 7, 2023 2:05PM

Most responses so far seem to agree with what I stated earlier:
checking for code validation before doing accessibility testing has
its merits.
And SC 4.1.1 is (or was?) part of the guideline that states: "Maximize
compatibility with current and future user agents, including assistive
technologies".
Does not matter if those are obscure or inexpensive.
Thanks,
Sailesh



On 8/7/23, Patrick H. Lauke < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> On 07/08/2023 20:42, Birkir R. Gunnarsson wrote:
>> I also wonder, if we keep going down this path, whether we still need
>> to report labels that are not connected to inputs under 4.1.2 or
>> 1.3.1, if one or two screen reader browser combinations guess them
>> right.
>
> They may guess them right, but this one can be checked very easily in
> the underlying API: does the browser expose an accessible name for the
> input, yes or no? If no (but then the specific AT manages to guess it),
> it's still a failure of 4.1.2. That one is quite unambiguous, because
> you can't guarantee that all ATs will have the same heuristics.
>
> In the case of misnested/invalid markup, you can guarantee that browsers
> all error-correct that markup the same way, since that has been defined
> explicitly in the HTML (5/living standard) spec, so not up to heuristics
> in browsers anymore, as used to be the case.
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
> https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> > > > >


--
Sailesh Panchang
Customer Success Strategist and Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc
381 Elden Street, Suite 2000, Herndon,
VA 20170
Mobile: 571-344-1765