Parsing
Tier 1 · The normative floor
Baseline compliance
What the normative text of WCAG 2.2 requires, and nothing more. Only a failure of this tier is a WCAG failure.
The bare minimum
Nothing. WCAG 2.2 marks this criterion obsolete and removed, so it can't be failed under 2.2. WCAG 2.2's introduction notes that organizations required by policy to conform to WCAG 2.0 or 2.1 may still need to test and report it.
Known failures
These fail this criterion or a related one named in the text. Log them as WCAG failures.
- Markup errors that break names, roles, states or relationships for assistive technology still fail, under 1.3.1 or 4.1.2.
Not required by the normative text
Common claims that this criterion does not support. Don't log these as WCAG failures.
- Valid HTML for WCAG 2.2 conformance.
Notes in the criterion Informative
WCAG 2.2 lists notes among its informative material, which "does not create requirements that impact a conformance claim." They help interpret the criterion but are not part of the floor.
This criterion was originally adopted to address problems that assistive technology had directly parsing HTML. Assistive technology no longer has any need to directly parse HTML. Consequently, these problems either no longer exist or are addressed by other criteria. This criterion no longer has utility and is removed.
Tier 2 · The gap
Usability & user impact
Where content can meet this criterion and still make things harder for people with disabilities. These are not failures of SC 4.1.1, so raise them as usability defects. Known failures, including failures of related criteria, are listed in Tier 1.
Invalid markup that doesn't affect the accessibility tree isn't a WCAG failure, but it can make behavior inconsistent across browsers and assistive technologies.
Tier 3 · The golden path
Recommended best practice
The pattern that meets the floor, closes the gap, and avoids audit disputes. A recommendation, not a requirement.
Keep markup valid as good engineering practice, and test the accessibility tree rather than validator output.
W3C's Understanding document and techniques for SC 4.1.1 ↗ are informative: sufficient techniques show ways to pass, and documented failures show common ways to fail, but neither changes what the criterion requires.
How SC 4.1.1 maps to the WCAG 3 draft
From this site's reviewed map to the WCAG 3 editor's draft. It's an interpretation: W3C has not published a mapping.
Obsolete and removed in WCAG 2.2.
From WCAG 2.2, section 5.1: “The main content of WCAG 2.2 is normative and defines requirements that impact conformance claims. Introductory material, appendices, sections marked as "non-normative", diagrams, examples, and notes are informative (non-normative). Non-normative material provides advisory information to help interpret the guidelines but does not create requirements that impact a conformance claim.”