Re: If "skip to main" link is not the very first link/focusable item on a page, should I call a WCAG 2.0 violation?

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>wrote:

> Glenda,****
>
> Adding the WCAG 2.0 public comment email – the WG will follow up with you
> about this.****
>
> ** **
>
> I’ll comment that this technique does require that the link is the first
> one on the page, but this technique is not the only way to meet 2.4.1.  The
> techniques are not normative, as you indicate, but sufficient.  This
> technique is just one sufficient way to meet 2.4.1.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> AWK****
>
> ** **
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick****
>
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility****
>
> Adobe Systems ****
>
> ** **
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com <akirkpatrick@adobe.com>****
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk****
>
> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Glenda Sims [mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 19, 2013 8:27 PM
> *To:* wai@w3.org
> *Cc:* Glenda Sims
> *Subject:* If "skip to main" link is not the very first link/focusable
> item on a page, should I call a WCAG 2.0 violation?****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear WAI,****
>
> ** **
>
> We are working hard at Deque to make sure that our tools (FireEyes and
> WorldSpace) accurately interpret the WCAG 2.0 standard.  A current debate
> on our team is the requirement for the location of the "skip to main" link
> for meeting 2.4.1 ByPass Blocks. ****
>
> ** **
>
> The normative part of WCAG 2.0 states:****
>
> ** **
>
> *2.4.1 Bypass Blocks:* A mechanism<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#mechanismdef> is
> available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web
> pages <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#webpagedef>. (Level A)****
>
> ** **
>
> In the informative "Sufficient Techniques" listed for 2.4.1, there is a
> technique listed: ****
>
> G1: Adding a link at the top of each page that goes directly to the main
> content area <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/G1>****
>
> ** **
>
> In the procedure to test G1, the first step states:****
>
> ** **
>
> 1) Check that a link is the first focusable control on the Web page.****
>
> ** **
>
> At this point...we are a long, long way from the "normative" part of the
> WCAG 2.0.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> So, the clarification I seek is this?  Should automated accessibility
> testing tools throw a WCAG 2.0 A violation on 2.4.1 if the "skip to main"
> link is anything other than the absolute first focusable item on the page?
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> My humble (personal opinion) is...the normative portion of WCAG 2.0 does
> not indicate that it must be the first link.  So, I've never demanded that
> the "skip to main" link be the absolute first item on the page.  However,
> WorldSpace and FireEyes are currently throwing an WCAG 2.0 2.4.1 violation
> if the "skip to main" link is not the very first focusable item on a page.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Can you tell me the proper interpretation so I can make sure our software
> is supporting the true intent of WCAG 2.0 2.4.1.****
>
> ** **
>
> Merci,****
>
> Glenda****
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> glenda sims    |    deque.com    |    512.963.3773
>
> *web for everyone. web on everything.* -  w3 goals ****
>
================================
Response from the Working Group
================================
You are correct that failure to use one of the WCAG 2.0 Sufficient
Techniques is not necessarily a failure of the success criterion. G1 and
G124 are written to position the links as the first links on the page
because the working group feels that is best practice, and to be
encouraged. However, as long as there is some mechanism to skip blocks of
repeated material, the success criterion has been met.


Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact


On behalf of the WCAG Working Group