RE: 1.3.1 question

Andrew,

No, I was referring to 1.3.2. I was asked to explain meaningful sequence and much of what is in WCAG seems to be vague for real world coding these days. 
At one point I had found a source that mentioned labeling for multiple landmarks as a way to assist with the reading sequence and structure of the page. I’ve used that thought but I would be glad to be corrected if wrong in assigning it to a 1.3.2 item.

Thanks for asking.

Alan

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 6:17 PM
To: ALAN SMITH; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL; jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com; 'WCAG'
Subject: Re: 1.3.1 question

Alan,
You keep saying 1.3.2, but to clarify, you mean 1.3.1, yes?  (1.3.2=meaningful sequence, 1.3.1=information and relationships)

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe 

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

From: "alands289@gmail.com" <alands289@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, April 1, 2016 at 17:36
To: Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: 1.3.1 question

I did not mean to start a whole new topic. I have always thought it was required for 1.3.2.
 
Following Katie’s thought, it would be “two or more of the same navigation regions are on a page” would cover others besides navigation or nav regions.
 
Regards,
 
Alan
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 
From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 5:12 PM
To: 'Jonathan Avila'; 'ALAN SMITH'; 'Andrew Kirkpatrick'; 'WCAG'
Subject: RE: 1.3.1 question
 
If a technique is written, it might say “when two or more navigation regions are on a page….”
 
​​​​​
 
 
 
* katie *
 
Katie Haritos-Shea
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
 
Cell: 703-371-5545 |ryladog@gmail.com|Oakton, VA |LinkedIn Profile|Office: 703-371-5545
 
From: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 4:59 PM
To: ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; WCAG <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
703.637.8957 (Office)
 
Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin | Blog
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 for Windows 10
 
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 4:32 PM
To: WCAG
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
http://twitter.com/awkawk
http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility