Implemented the F13 as a 1.1.1 and 1.3.3 failure

[baldino-m]

Diff preview

Preview: https://deploy-preview-5102--wcag2.netlify.app/techniques/failures/f13

Closes #4784

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	9c5dc93
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/wcag2/deploys/6aad3d0f1f0dd10008bd1fc2
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-5102--wcag2.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.
🤖 Make changes	Run an agent on this branch

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[bruce-usab]

I like the prose of the rewrite — but I disagree with swapping 1.4.1 out for 1.3.3 (because 1.3.3 is limited to instructions only). Edit to note that I agree that “instructions” can and should be read broadly.

[baldino-m]

I like the prose of the rewrite — but I disagree with swapping 1.4.1 out for 1.3.3 (because 1.3.3 is limited to instructions only).

Hi @bruce-usab,

I disagree: in my opinion, the alternative text is providing effective instructions about how to "read" (so to speak) the bar chart ("The red bars indicate sales that were below the yearly quota"). The SC states: "Instructions provided for understanding and operating content [...]" and I think that this applies. The instructions just don't make sense as an alternative text is aimed (mainly) at non-sighted users. I am more than happy to discuss with the group and get everyone's opinion about this.

[bruce-usab]

I have changed my mind upon another re-reading, and I agree 1.3.3 is a fit and 1.4.1 is not.

[patrickhlauke]

rereading this, it's such a convoluted multi-failure example. to me, at first reading, and in order of "priority"

• the image of the chart itself as described fails 1.4.1 Use of Color
• i can then see how you could argue that the text alternative, while describing things correctly visually, fails to fully convey the meaning/content of the image, so failure of 1.1.1 Non-text Content
• if you then insist, yes i can understand why you'd then ALSO say this fails 1.3.3 Sensory characteristics. though I am still not convinced altogether than the text alternative is an instruction - the alternative is intended to act as the thing itself...once somebody gets the alternative, you'd assume they don't see the actual image. so it's not "instructing" so much as it is "replacing" (though yes, i'm aware that there are scenarios where low-vision users may both be able to at least partially perceive the image itself and then still use the alt as a description). I more naturally count instructions as being somewhere else on the page

(leaving the interpretation of 1.3.3 aside, one way of making it more clearly just a 1.1.1/1.3.3 failure would be if the actual image of the chart used something other that the red colour - like a pattern, or bold text, or whatever that doesn't count as just colour, and the alt text then decided to ONLY mention the red colour. feels a bit of a stretch perhaps?)

maybe a much less ambiguous fix here would be to make this a failure of 1.4.1 Use of Color and 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics (and leave 1.1.1 aside). Say there's the image of the chart that relies on colour, AND there's a visible caption underneath the chart referring to the red colour. there, unambiguous failure of both, without the awkward "is the alternative to be considered something that users would also consume at the same time as seeing the original?".

For the scenario of the chart just using red and the alt reflecting that, it's enough that that would fail 1.4.1 I'd say (without trying to then crowbar some failure of 1.1.1 into it).

If it was a chart that used red and some other clue, so not failing 1.4.1, but the alt text only talked about the red colour, then just fail it under 1.1.1 and be done with it for not being appropriate alternative for the non-text content....no need to try and drag in an extra 1.3.3 failure out of it