Re: Issue 171

I agree with the group's consensus that landmarks are not required, but I'm concerned that the statement might be confusing.
Would it be clearer to state:  “The Working Group agrees that Landmarks are not required to meet SC 1.3.1 for any page with head/foot/navigation areas so long as other methods are employed to indicate a page's structure."
Mike
 

    On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 8:26 AM, Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com> wrote:
 

 #yiv9648399638 #yiv9648399638 -- _filtered #yiv9648399638 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9648399638 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9648399638 {panose-1:3 7 4 2 5 3 2 3 2 3;} _filtered #yiv9648399638 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv9648399638 #yiv9648399638 p.yiv9648399638MsoNormal, #yiv9648399638 li.yiv9648399638MsoNormal, #yiv9648399638 div.yiv9648399638MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9648399638 a:link, #yiv9648399638 span.yiv9648399638MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9648399638 a:visited, #yiv9648399638 span.yiv9648399638MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9648399638 p.yiv9648399638msonormal0, #yiv9648399638 li.yiv9648399638msonormal0, #yiv9648399638 div.yiv9648399638msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9648399638 span.yiv9648399638EmailStyle18 {color:windowtext;}#yiv9648399638 .yiv9648399638MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv9648399638 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv9648399638 div.yiv9648399638WordSection1 {}#yiv9648399638 +1    Kathy CEO & Founder Interactive Accessibility    T(978) 443-0798 F (978) 560-1251 C (978) 760-0682
E kathyw@ia11y.com   www.InteractiveAccessibility.com    NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. Thank you.    From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2016 1:16 PM
To: WCAG <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 http://twitter.com/awkawk http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility