Re: CfC: Issue 171

+1 with a reservation.
Headers, footings and navigation areas have important relationships with
the rest of the content, and they are important for navigating pages. "Or
text" applies when the medium does not provide the structure to support
semantic markup.  That is no longer true for headers, footers or navigation
regions. Landmarks are not  the only way to meet this. Links would do it.
Does 1.3.1 fail if landmarks are not there, no. Does 1.3.1 fail if just
text is there, yes.



On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Sarah Horton <shorton@paciellogroup.com>
wrote:

> +1
>
> Sarah Horton
> UX Strategy Lead
> The Paciello Group
> 603 252-6052 mobile
>
> > On Apr 5, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > http://twitter.com/awkawk
> > http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
>
>
>