Re: Issue 171

Hi Andrew--
Yes, I'll go with the consensus. I prefer being more prescriptive, but if it isn't an issue for rest of the group I'm okay with it.
Mike 

    On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:29 PM, Adam Solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com> wrote:
 

 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 KirkpatrickGroup Product Manager, Accessibility and StandardsAdobe 
akirkpat@adobe.comhttp://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 areasso 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 KathyCEO & FounderInteractive Accessibility T(978) 443-0798 F (978) 560-1251 C (978) 760-0682
E kathyw@ia11y.com  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]
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 KirkpatrickGroup Product Manager, AccessibilityAdobe  akirkpat@adobe.comhttp://twitter.com/awkawkhttp://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility