Re: 1.3.1 question

Focusing in on the specific question, do people agree or disagree that landmarks are required to meet 1.3.1?  Would google.com (or other sites with a footer area that is shown presentationally) fail 1.3.1 if they don’t provide landmarks?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk

http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility


From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>>
Date: Friday, April 1, 2016 at 16:59
To: "alands289@gmail.com<mailto:alands289@gmail.com>" <alands289@gmail.com<mailto:alands289@gmail.com>>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: 1.3.1 question


Ø  With a page that has multiple “navigation regions” labeling is important.

IMO, if a page has multiple landmarks such as multiple navigation regions at the same level then they would need an accessible name.  Providing an accessible name for the sole header at the top of the page and the sole footer at the bottom of the page seem too verbose in my opinion.  So if we choose to require accessible names for landmark we need to be very as to when they would be required so we have a testable way to make a determination.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
703.637.8957 (Office)

Visit us online: Website<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> | Linkedin<https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/>
Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars!<http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/>

From: ALAN SMITH [mailto:alands289@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 4:53 PM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick; WCAG
Subject: RE: 1.3.1 question

It is my understanding that they also need labeling beyond the announced “Contentinfo or footer landmark/region” or “Navigation landmark/region”.  Window-Eyes grabs the adjacent text in the code and appends it to the label it displays in its Landmarks list. This is not always what the landmark really is and can be misleading.

Since all the screen readers can jump to landmarks/regions it is a valuable item to have on the page.
It provides an understanding of the structure and meaningful sequence which is 1.3.2.

With a page that has multiple “navigation regions” labeling is important.

Is it required? For 1.3.2 I think so.
1.3.2 is a very vague and often ambiguous guideline IMO.

Regards,

Alan

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 4:32 PM
To: WCAG<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: 1.3.1 question

Jon raised a question in response to a tweet from Paul Adam and we would like to get the group’s opinions.

The issue is #171 (https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/171) and speaks to the need to follow techniques such as ARIA11 (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/ARIA11.html) to mark regions of a page.

The discussion so far is that authors might accomplish this with HTML5 elements (e.g. Header, footer, etc) or using ARIA landmark roles  (e.g. Navigation, contentinfo, main).

SC 1.3.1 reads:
Info and Relationships: Information, structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined or are available in text.

What do people think?  For a site like http://google.com – does this page fail 1.3.1 because it doesn’t mark the header and footer areas?

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