Re: Issue 171

David,
For some websites this may be 5 minutes but for many more complex 
applications it is much much more. I don't think you should 
underestimate how long even a seemingly minor change can make in a 
complex web application.

Regards,
James

On 4/7/2016 9:19 AM, David MacDonald wrote:
> Hi Adam
>
> I've tried to address the language and changed in the proposal to 
> ensure there is different content in the separate region which is 
> distinct from the other content. In other words, if there is distinct 
> content in a footer and its visually indicated as distinct, the 
> failure would apply. We are really trying to get websites to take the 
> 5 minutes necessary to fix this and make the site much more navigable, 
> and understandable.
>
> "This failure addresses the problem that occurs when regions of a page 
> are visually distinct from other parts of the page, and contain 
> different content (such as groups of links, advertisements, etc.) that 
> are distinct from the main content of the page, but are not easy to 
> identify for those who cannot see those visual distinctions."
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:06 AM, Adam Solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com 
> <mailto:adam.solomon2@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     To extend this thinking, consider a header which has a logo at the
>     top of the page and is distinguished by its unique background
>     color relative to the rest of the page. This visual cue of
>     background color is really only a style consideration. What
>     relationship of structure is being conveyed here? The fact that
>     the header happens to be at the top of the page seems irrelevant
>     to structure.
>
>     On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Patrick H. Lauke
>     <redux@splintered.co.uk <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>         On 06/04/2016 23:15, David MacDonald wrote:
>
>             If there is a visual indication of a Header, Footer,
>             Navigation, etc...
>             then knowledge of these sections should be available to
>             people who are
>             blind.
>             This is why we have 1.3.1.
>
>
>         [...]
>
>             Here is Gregg's comment about failures:
>             =====
>             actually, you can document a failure if there is a fail —
>             at any point
>             in time.   A fail is like a technique.
>
>             Failures  (full name is    common failure  ) is
>
>               * something that ALWAYS fails the SC as written
>               * is common - and therefore worth documenting.
>
>             failures never modify WCAG - they just document what is a
>             failure
>               (ALWAYS a failure on all content)
>
>
>         And this is where I see a danger of making very broad
>         statements about "visual indication" without actually
>         considering the content and context. Conversely, if the basis
>         of determining the failure is the "visual indication", what
>         happens if the exact same markup that would fail under this
>         new failure was simply styled NOT to have a distinct visual
>         indication? Would that then be a pass?
>
>         https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173#issuecomment-206625763
>
>
>         -- 
>         Patrick H. Lauke
>
>         www.splintered.co.uk <http://www.splintered.co.uk> |
>         https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>         http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
>         twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
>
>

-- 
Regards, James

Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 987 
1918 <tel:+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video: james.nurthen@oracle.com 
<sip:james.nurthen@oracle.com>
Oracle Corporate Architecture
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood Cty, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment