W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > May 2014

Re: 1.3.1 Info & Relationships - are ARIA landmarks required? ( LC-2922)

From: <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 16:28:10 +0000
Message-Id: <E1WhLkQ-00035W-Sa@jessica.w3.org>
To: Glenda Sims <Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
 Dear Glenda Sims ,

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has reviewed the
comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 published on 11 Dec 2008. Thank you for
having taken the time to review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
public-comments-wcag20@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 12 May
2014. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a
consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a
formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the
transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation


For the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group,
Michael Cooper
W3C Staff Contact

 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/


Your comment on 1.3.1 Info and Relationships: Information, structure,
> I need clarification on *2.3.1 Info & Relationships*.  Can you tell me
> if
> my interpretation is correct:
> I think it is possible to pass WCAG 2.0 SC 1.3.1 without using ARIA
> landmarks.  As much as I love ARIA landmarks...I do not think they are
> required in WCAG 2.0.
> I always recommend them, but I don't currently have my team call a WCAG
> 2.0
>  violation on SC 1.3.1 if ARIA landmarks are missing.
> Thanks in advance for your insight (as you might guess, the Deque
> Accessibility Experts are not in agreement in how to interpret this).

Working Group Resolution (LC-2922):
Thank you for your comment.  It isn't a violation of WCAG to NOT use
landmark roles. Nor indeed any other aspect of ARIA, it is of course
desirable when needed. Your approach, recommending the use of ARIA
landmarks, and indeed, other ARIA role, states and properties as required
is laudable - but they are not mandatory to meet any specific success

- ARIA11 is documented as a sufficient technique for SC 1.3.1 and SC 2.4.1
and like most techniques, is not the only way for passing these SC.

Received on Monday, 5 May 2014 16:28:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:15:00 UTC