Re: CfC: Issue 171

So the person who is blind has to surf through 4 or 5 links before starting
to deduce that they are in a navigation element. If sighted people had to
do something like that they would be on to the next site.

Why not just provide an indication that they are entering a navigation
region?

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
wrote:

> Ø  If headers, footers, navigation groups, asides, are visually
> identified, what would be our rational for not requiring these
> relationships to be known to blind people?
>
>
>
> Take for example I have 5 links next to each other without other content
> separating them – with a screen reader either tabbing or using arrow keys
> or swipe gestures I can tell that there are links together as a group
> without any specific container or role.  In this case the relationship is
> communicated by the fact that they are all next to each other in a
> meaningful sequence.   Now if I had 5 links together with no separation and
> visually 3 belong to one group and the other 2 another group and the names
> of the links was not sufficient to tell the groupings apart then I would
> see a requirement to group and label them.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 06, 2016 6:33 PM
> *To:* Laura Carlson
> *Cc:* Andrew Kirkpatrick; WCAG
> *Subject:* Re: CfC: Issue 171
>
>
>
> If headers, footers, navigation groups, asides, are visually identified,
> what would be our rational for not requiring these relationships to be
> known to blind people?
>
> +1 to this.
>
> “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."
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On 4/5/16, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
> > 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<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> > http://twitter.com/awkawk
> > http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
> >
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
>
>