2 of 7

Is there an assumption of consistent human language on a page?

A page is in a human language (e.g., English, Chinese, Russian)

Scenario 1. A page contains a form. The page title, introduction, buttons, instructions and dynamic messages on a page all match the page’s human language. However, some of the labels on the form are in a different human language.
Scenario 2. One of the headings on the page is in a different human language. It is the only thing on the page in that language.

Assuming the language change is noticed, does anyone think either scenario would pass QA without someone raising an issue?

3 of 7

Is there an assumption of consistent human language for alternative text on page?

A page is identified as being in a human language (e.g., English, Chinese, Russian)

Scenario 1: Audio in a video is in the page’s language, but the audio descriptions are in a different language.
Scenario 2: An image on the page has its alt text in a different language.

Assuming the language change is noticed, does anyone think either scenario would pass QA without someone raising an issue?

Do we have the ability, based on 2.2 language, to fail non-matching language?

1.1.1 Non-text Content: "...text alternative that serves the equivalent purpose..."
[from definition of text alternative] "...Text that is programmatically associated with non-text content or referred to from text that is programmatically associated with non-text content..."
all 9 of criteria under 1.2 Time-Based Media
1.3.1 Info & Relationships: "...can be programmatically determined or are available in text."
1.4.5 Images of Text: "...text is used to convey information rather than images of text..."
2.4.2 Page Titled: "Web pages have titles that describe topic or purpose."
2.4.4 Link Purpose (In Context): "The purpose of each link can be determined from the link text alone or from the link text together with its programmatically determined link context..."

2.4.6 Headings and Labels: "Headings and labels describe topic or purpose."
2.5.3 Label in Name: "...the name contains the text that is presented visually."
3.3.1 Error Identification: "...the item that is in error is identified and the error is described to the user in text."
3.3.2 Labels or Instructions: "Labels or instructions are provided when content requires user input."
3.3.3 Error Suggestion: "...suggestions are provided to the user..."
3.3.5 Help: "Context-sensitive help is available."

Basically, no criteria have normative wording covering this

Conformance section offers some checks

“ conforming alternate version ... provides all of the same information and functionality in the same human language...” and “If multiple language versions are available, then conforming alternate versions are required for each language offered.” (Note 3)

"Conformance (and conformance level) is for full Web page(s) only, and cannot be achieved if part of a Web page is excluded.”

“…the way that the technology is used has been tested for interoperability with users' assistive technology in the human language(s) of the content.”

Proposal: Create stock statement; add to each relevant SC’s Understanding doc

Alternate proposal: Some changes in language in alternative text pass

“Programmatically determined” and “text alternative” uses of ‘incorrect’ language likely cause failures through ‘accessibility supported’ conformance wording
Criteria that do not specify ‘programmatically determined’ or ‘text alternative’ pass, despite any ‘accidental’ non-matching language

All time-based media SCs, Images of Text, part of Link Purpose (In Context), Headings and Labels, Label in Name(?), Labels or instructions, Error Suggestions, Help