In the ever-evolving landscape of web accessibility, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) serve as a crucial benchmark. Due to the reliance on WCAG from governance and legislative bodies there is always a significant concern in undoing any of these benchmarks.
The removal of criterion 4.1.1 Parsing, should however, be applauded.
Whilst G.K. Chesterton died in 1936 just a short 63 years before the introduction of WCAG we know under his second-order thinking framework dubbed Chesterton’s Fence he also would have applauded these changes.
By understanding why 4.1.1 Parsing was initially included, we can appreciate its removal as a reflection of advancements in web technology and a deepened understanding of web accessibility.
Parsing
4.1.1 Parsing, a criterion in the previous WCAG 2.1, played a critical role in ensuring web content's machine-readability and structural soundness. Its primary aim was to guarantee that user agents, like browsers and assistive technologies, could accurately interpret and present content without errors.
This requirement emphasized the importance of proper HTML syntax and error-free code, ensuring that web pages did not contain major parsing errors that could hinder accessibility.
It was first introduced in 1999 when the internet was in it’s adolescence with WCAG1.0 with the description ‘Create documents that validate to published formal grammars’. The provision was instrumental in guiding developers towards creating web content that was both structurally sound and accessible to all users, including those relying on assistive technologies.
But, by 2004 just five years later there was already discussion on removing it. Some factions claimed that technology had already evolved enough to allow browsers and other technologies to parse the document correctly regardless. Other’s argued such an allowance removed the ‘tech agnostic’ ethos of WCAG.
A member of the WCAG Working Group at the time, David McDonald later in 2016, described it as “almost WW3 over validation”.
This discussion would continue for a few more years before WCAG2.0 settled on the wording we still see in WCAG2.1.
“In content implemented using markup languages, elements have complete start and end tags, elements are nested according to their specifications, elements do not contain duplicate attributes, and any IDs are unique, except where the specifications allow these features.”
And that’s where it stayed, occasionally being brought up in conversation, but mostly resigned to accepting that it was only allowed to join the party if it came with it’s counterparts such as 1.3.1 Info & Relationships, or 4.1.2 Name, Role Value.
Until last year, when the conversation began again, not as a call for destruction or deregulation but a simple question of what is this success criterion’s intent and is it being achieved?
It’s no surprise this conversation gained the traction needed to make the change; we too rarely ask why something exists.
Chesterton’s Fence
G.K. Chesterton is a famous author and philosopher born in the late 20th century. Whilst there are many notable things to say about Chesterton a particular interest and talent of his was participating in public discussion and debate. This love for fierce and open debate led to Chesterton developing many theoretical models and principles, possibly the most famous of which was made even more popular when used repeatedly by John F. Kennedy - Chesterton’s Fence.
Chesterton's Fence, originating from a collections of his essays named The Thing, posits that one should not remove a fence without first understanding why it was put up. The full quote is
“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox.
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think.
Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
— G.K. Chesterton, “The Thing”
Chesterton’s theory originally underscored the importance of understanding the original purpose behind any guideline or requirement before asking for it’s dismantle, an argument intended to benefit traditionalism.
Let’s apply that to what happened with Parsing. By trying to avoid a decision that could lead to “WW3” the WCAG Working Groups managed to cement in a fence. A fence that whilst originally useful quickly provided no function except to act as a hurdle for everyone crossing it’s path. Worst is it stayed this way for nearly two decades with businesses and developers shouting for it to be removed whilst accessibility advocates and specialists chained themselves to it. Nearly two decades before anyone asked - why does this fence exist?
Accessibility as an industry will defend criteria to the death, instead of first asking why it exists. Developers, Designers and Business Owners will fight against criteria, instead of first asking why it exists.
With the changes to 4.1.1 Parsing it has now, and should continue to be, used as a framework for not just a possible enforcement of tradition, but possibly the catalyst to break them down.
Building Bridges
4.1.1 Parsing was a necessity of it’s time. It’s original intent, like all criteria is to ensure the web is accessible - it did this through ensuring there were no elements present (or missing) from the HTML documentation that would cause issues with the browser.
With the progression of web technologies, most notably the introduction of HTML5, browsers have become increasingly adept at handling HTML parsing errors. Modern browsers are designed to interpret and correct faulty markup, ensuring that even poorly structured HTML can still render correctly and be accessible.
Instead of 4.1.1 Parsing achieving it’s original aim, it became a unnecessary point of confusion and conflict for accessibility specialists and developers. Auditors relying on automated tools such as nuHTML Checker would flag issues only seen in the source code, not in the rendered views. Developers often working in gigantic code bases would waste valuable time and opportunity cost scouring for mistakes before asking - why are you telling me how to do my job?
The significant improvements in HTML5 providing centralised error handling and other technologies has significantly diminished the need for strict adherence to 4.1.1 Parsing. It did not provide value to anyone, particularly people with disabilities.
As a result of this change, the focus of web accessibility has shifted from rigid syntactical correctness to more dynamic and practical aspects that directly impact user experience, especially for those with disabilities.
Web developers are offered a more flexible approach to coding without compromising on accessibility. This change does not lower the standards of accessibility but rather acknowledges the advancements in technology that aid in achieving these standards. Developers must continue to focus on other critical aspects of WCAG to ensure web content is accessible to all users, including those with disabilities.
Accessibility specialists must continue to actively and critically discuss guidelines and criteria to ask if we’re building bridges and ramps, or fences and hurdles.
As web technologies continue to evolve if we are unable to evolve our standards with them, accessibility will become a fence without purpose.
“Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.”— Robert Frost, “Mending Wall”