W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-aria@w3.org > February 2016

RE: APG Landmark Design Pattern Update and Questions related to Banner and Contenting landmarks

From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:17:40 -0000
To: "'Richard Schwerdtfeger'" <richschwer@gmail.com>, "'Gunderson, Jon R'" <jongund@illinois.edu>
Cc: "'Matt King'" <a11ythinker@gmail.com>, "'James Nurthen'" <james.nurthen@oracle.com>, <public-aria@w3.org>
Message-ID: <125501d163f4$ae24ea80$0a6ebf80$@tink.uk>
From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:richschwer@gmail.com] 
Sent: 09 February 2016 16:19



On Feb 8, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Gunderson, Jon R <jongund@illinois.edu <mailto:jongund@illinois.edu> > wrote:

 

I am not sure why using the analogy of a “Table of Contents” is getting so much resistance, since it is something that most people can understand and help people to understand what landmarks can do.   I think where the analogy breaks down is that it is not useful when people get into sub sections, so maybe there is a better way to describe the analogy as a “high level table of contents of the content regions on the page”.

 

I agree with Jon on this. It is a table of contents for the page. People understand that. If landmarks are implemented correctly (everything in a landmark) then you indeed can jump to all content sections of the page. 

 

I'm not so sure that's how people do think about landmarks. I did a straw poll of people from the British Computer Association of the Blind forum, Twitter and the A11ySlackers channel. I asked:

 

Do you think of landmarks (banner, main, navigation etc.) as a table of contents for the page (y/n)?

 

Of the 34 people who have responded, 26 said no, 7 said yes, and 1 was unsure. Not extensive research, but suggests we might want to think of a better way to describe landmarks.

 

 

Léonie.

 

-- 

@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

 

 
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2016 11:18:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:58:20 UTC