SC 1.3.1: Responsive stacked table

[Ignacio-de-Loyola]

If the table structure and markup structure that can be seen on the screen are different, does responsive table fail 1.3.1?

For example, in the Bordered table of the U.S. Design System, the actual HTML markup structure is a table with 4 rows and 3 columns, but on the screen, the list format of the ul, li markup structure seems appropriate.

When a user (low vision) using a screen reader while looking at the screen navigates the table, the markup structure is 3 columns, so when navigating with the arrow keys, he or she will select the right arrow key. However, the user who is looking at the screen may think that he or she should select the down arrow key.

Is SC 1.3.1 a success if only the structure of the table can be understood programmatically? Or can it be considered a failure if the information on the screen and the table structure are different?

[Table example with rows of tables stacked down]

[patrickhlauke]

to me, that won't fail. what matters isn't that the markup be a 1-to-1 match of what's visually presented, but rather that relationships are preserved so that the meaning is conveyed correctly, whether you consume the content visually or via a screen reader/other AT.