Remove 2nd WCAG reference: 1.3.1 #1747
Conversation
Remove 1.3.1 as this is more relatable to 1.3.3, being a visual rule, and trying to only use 1 WCAG SC per rule.
HelenBurge
requested review from
ShadowBB,
carlosapaduarte,
colabottles,
JenniferChadwick,
Jym77,
kherr-a11y,
tbostic32,
wcreedle and
WilcoFiers
HelenBurge
changed the title
|
I think before committing this change - this needs to be discussed to see if we need to do more work and/or reverse it all! |
|
Given the discussion above and looking into the rule I don't have any strong feelings. Maybe a slight preference towards leaving it as is, but I agree 1.3.3 is much more applicable. One other thought about the last sentence in the background section: "[Only 1.3.1 would fail instead of both means] the rule passes as it is not a failure of all accessibility requirements". Is that a true statement? I thought we had rules where only one of the requirements fails and so it fails the rule. I can't actually find a definitive answer for this in the rules format spec, maybe something we should clarify. |
|
Need to resolve all references to 1.3.1 before submitting for review. |
HelenBurge
dismissed stale reviews from wcreedle and colabottles
Rework being done
Removed references to 1.3.1 to update the rule contents for just failing 1.3.3
readded the reference to stop failings
| @@ -63,13 +58,12 @@ _There are no major accessibility support issues known for this rule._ | |||
|
|
|||
| [Visual reference words][] that can be interpreted with the non-sensory meaning include, in English, expressions like "right after this" where "right" is a [visual reference word][] used with the meaning "immediately"; or words like "below" that is often used with the meaning "further in reading order". | |||
|
|
|||
| The rule doesn't require the non-visual characteristic description to be included in the accessibility tree. If the alternatives are not included in the accessibility tree, only [Success Criteria 1.3.1 Info and Relationships][sc131] would fail instead of both [Success Criterion 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics][sc133] and [Success Criteria 1.3.1 Info and Relationships][sc131]. Hence, the rule passes in these cases as it is not a failure of all accessibility requirements. | |||
| The rule doesn't require the non-visual characteristic description to be included in the accessibility tree. If the alternatives are not included in the accessibility tree, only [Success Criteria 1.3.1 Info and Relationships][sc131] would fail instead of [Success Criterion 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics][sc133]. Hence, the rule passes in these cases as it is not a failure of the accessibility requirements of this rule. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My only confusion is how passed example 12 (example with description not included in the accessibility tree) was passing with 1.3.1 is/was passing to begin with. We typically don't like examples that don't pass all criteria unless they are extensions of each other (e.g., AA and AAA for color contrast). If someone could clear that up would be great, but otherwise I think this is good to go.
HelenBurge
added
Review Call 1 week
Remove 1.3.1 as this is more relatable to 1.3.3, being a visual rule, and trying to only use 1 WCAG SC per rule.
Removed the 1.3.1 reference
Closes issue(s):
Need for Call for Review:
This will require a 1 week Call for Review