Re: CfC: Issue 171

reservation: the point was made in the email chain that headers and footers
may not necessarily have relationships which need to be conveyed. The
proposed response would imply that some technique, if not landmarks, needs
to be used to convey the presence of headers etc.. I am not sure that the
presence of all headers or footers needs to be conveyed. The standard
footer which is just a series of links is an example.
I propose adding the following to the proposed response:

“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 in cases where important relationships need to
be conveyed."

The simple existence of a footer which has a different background color
should not require semantic markup and the same goes for headers. If there
is an essential visual designation not available in text then that would
require some technique. Otherwise not.


On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:

> +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
>>
>>
>>
>