Removing 1.3.1 mapping from role attribute rule

[tbostic32]

• Removing mapping to 1.3.1
• Updated assumptions
• Added link to DPUB in examples

Need for Call for Review:
This will require a 2 weeks Call for Review

---

Pull Request Etiquette

When creating PR:

• Make sure you're requesting to pull a branch (right side) to the develop branch (left side).
• Make sure you do not remove the "How to Review and Approve" section in your pull request description

After creating PR:

• Add yourself (and co-authors) as "Assignees" for PR.
• Add label to indicate if it's a Rule, Definition or Chore.
• Link the PR to any issue it solves. This will be done automatically by referencing the issue at the top of this comment in the indicated place.
• Optionally request feedback from anyone in particular by assigning them as "Reviewers".

When merging a PR:

• Close any issue that the PR resolves. This will happen automatically upon merging if the PR was correctly linked to the issue, e.g. by referencing the issue at the top of this comment.

How to Review And Approve

• Go to the “Files changed” tab
• Here you will have the option to leave comments on different lines.
• Once the review is completed, find the “Review changes” button in the top right, select “Approve” (if you are really confident in the rule) or "Request changes" and click “Submit review”.
• Make sure to also review the proposed Call for Review period. In case of disagreement, the longer period wins.

[Jym77]

I'm not a fan of removing the mapping.

I do agree that technically a mispelled role attribute, does not always cause a failure of 1.3.1 and therefore as per our own rule format specification we shouldn't have the mapping.

However, a mispelled role attribute is still extremely suspicious (at the best) and extremely likely to be an actual mistake that should be fixed.

As a tool vendor, I see a lot of customers that are focused on compliance and start by disabling all rules that are not WCAG A or AA. By removing this mapping, we effectively remove this check for many people, even though mispelled role attribute is probably causing problems. Moreover, ignoring this check can make it harder to investigate other errors. (e.g. we won't flag an image for missing an accessible name because it has role="image" and doesn't trigger Image has non-empty accessible name…)

---

Of course, the rule still maps to ARIA. But sadly, ARIA is not required for legal compliance that only focuses on WCAG (at least in US and EU), so many of our customers incorrectly believe that ARIA rules are only Best Practice 😢

Of course, that's a wrong view of things. incorrect ARIA does not necessarily causes WCAG failure but often makes finding and investigating WCAG problems that much harder. (the same way that checking grammar of a text riddled with misspellings is hard)

---

So, on the technical level I do not have an objection to this change.
But on the "moral" level, I feel that we should fin a way to still points out that this rule (and several others) are extremely important and not mere "best practices". I am not sure how to do that.

[WilcoFiers]

Closing, we're going a different direction.