- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:43:01 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 06/04/2016 11:14, Adam Solomon wrote: > 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. Yes, that's a point I would like further discussion on too (once the more immediate "are ARIA landmarks required" question has been answered. Currently, to my understanding anyway, the SC's normative wording does not specify that page/app regions need to be identified necessarily at all, and indeed this will depend on the specific situation/case and should not be made an absolute requirement in all situations, I'd say. P > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com > <mailto: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 <mailto:shorton@paciellogroup.com>> wrote: > > +1 > > Sarah Horton > UX Strategy Lead > The Paciello Group > 603 252-6052 <tel:603%20252-6052> mobile > > > On Apr 5, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick > <akirkpat@adobe.com <mailto: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 <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> > > http://twitter.com/awkawk > > http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility > > > > -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2016 11:43:13 UTC