Re: Issue 171

Yes, that is correct.


From: "alands289@gmail.com<mailto:alands289@gmail.com>" <alands289@gmail.com<mailto:alands289@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 15:31
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Issue 171

So, their use is a sufficient technique per listed Situation A, it is just that they are not required

Is that the correct interpretation of this concensus?

Alan

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

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 1:18 PM
To: WCAG<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: CfC: Issue 171
Importance: High

CALL FOR CONSENSUS – ends Thursday April 7 at 1:30pm Boston time.

GitHub issue 171 related to the need for web pages to use Landmarks to conform to SC 1.3.1 has a proposed response as a result of a survey and discussion on the working group call (https://www.w3.org/2016/04/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item05).

Proposed response:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/171#issuecomment-205901598


“The Working Group agrees that Landmarks are not required to meet SC 1.3.1 for any page with head/foot/navigation areas as there are other ways to indicate a page's structure."

If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this position, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.

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