- From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:35:37 -0400
- To: "'Andrew Kirkpatrick'" <akirkpat@adobe.com>, <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, "'ALAN SMITH'" <alands289@gmail.com>, "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <030f01d18c6f$3258e480$970aad80$@gmail.com>
I think that would depend on if other forms of navigation were not provided such as headings…. * katie * Katie Haritos-Shea Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA) Cell: 703-371-5545 | <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 6:23 PM To: jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com; ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Subject: 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 <mailto: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 * 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: <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> Website | <https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> Twitter | <https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> Facebook | <https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> Linkedin | <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/> Blog <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/> Check out our Digital Accessibility 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
Received on Friday, 1 April 2016 23:36:08 UTC