Re: Issue 171

As I indicated previously I am against this proposal as it implies that
header/footer/nav require programmatic conveyance of structure.
Where text headers are present to indicate such a structure then semantic
headers or alternatives would be required. Otherwise, I don't recall any
mention of such a requirement before landmarks came on the scene. I also
don't recall any particular technique which was employed for this purpose
before landmarks, meaning that there were no accessible sites before
landmarks. I also didn't find any such markup on the w3c home page for the
header and the footer.


On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> Mike,
> It sounds like you are trying to make the statement advocate for a
> different solution and I don’t think that is necessary.
>
> I would break it down like this:
> Landmarks aren’t specifically required to meet 1.3.1, whether the page
> currently passes 1.3.1 or not.
>
> If a page fails 1.3.1, it doesn’t make landmarks required, it means that
> _something_ needs to be done, but not necessarily adding landmarks
> (although that is a good approach).
>
> Can you live with the current proposal?
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
> From: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>
> Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:41
> To: Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>, Andrew
> Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Issue 171
>
> I agree with the group's consensus that landmarks are not required, but
> I'm concerned that the statement might be confusing.
>
> Would it be clearer to state:  “The Working Group agrees that Landmarks
> are not required to meet SC 1.3.1 for any page with head/foot/navigation
> areas *so long as other methods are employed* to indicate a page's
> structure."
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 8:26 AM, Kathy Wahlbin <
> kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com> wrote:
>
>
> +1
>
> Kathy
> CEO & Founder
> Interactive Accessibility
>
> *T*(978) 443-0798  *F* (978) 560-1251  *C* (978) 760-0682
> *E* kathyw@ia11y.com
> www.InteractiveAccessibility.com
> <http://www.interactiveaccessibility.com/>
>
> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the
> sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. Thank you.
>
> *From:* Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com <akirkpat@adobe.com>]
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 5, 2016 1:16 PM
> *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* CfC: Issue 171
> *Importance:* High
>
> CALL FOR CONSENSUS – ends Thursday April 7 at 1:30pm Boston time.
>
> GitHub issue 171 related to the need for web pages to use Landmarks to
> conform to SC 1.3.1 has a proposed response as a result of a survey and
> discussion on the working group call (
> https://www.w3.org/2016/04/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item05).
>
> Proposed response:
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/171#issuecomment-205901598
>
> “The Working Group agrees that Landmarks are not required to meet SC 1.3.1
> for any page with head/foot/navigation areas as there are other ways to
> indicate a page's structure."
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
> being able to live with” this position, please let the group know before
> the CfC deadline.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
>
>
>