RE: 1.3.1 question

It is my understanding that they also need labeling beyond the announced “Contentinfo or footer landmark/region” or “Navigation landmark/region”.  Window-Eyes grabs the adjacent text in the code and appends it to the label it displays in its Landmarks list. This is not always what the landmark really is and can be misleading.

Since all the screen readers can jump to landmarks/regions it is a valuable item to have on the page.
It provides an understanding of the structure and meaningful sequence which is 1.3.2.

With a page that has multiple “navigation regions” labeling is important.

Is it required? For 1.3.2 I think so. 
1.3.2 is a very vague and often ambiguous guideline IMO.

Regards, 

Alan

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 4:32 PM
To: WCAG
Subject: 1.3.1 question

Jon raised a question in response to a tweet from Paul Adam and we would like to get the group’s opinions.

The issue is #171 (https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/171) and speaks to the need to follow techniques such as ARIA11 (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/ARIA11.html) to mark regions of a page.

The discussion so far is that authors might accomplish this with HTML5 elements (e.g. Header, footer, etc) or using ARIA landmark roles  (e.g. Navigation, contentinfo, main).

SC 1.3.1 reads: 
Info and Relationships: Information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are available in text.

What do people think?  For a site like http://google.com – does this page fail 1.3.1 because it doesn’t mark the header and footer areas?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe 

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk
http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility