Re: Issue 171

Mike,
It sounds like you are trying to make the statement advocate for a different solution and I don’t think that is necessary.

I would break it down like this:
Landmarks aren’t specifically required to meet 1.3.1, whether the page currently passes 1.3.1 or not.

If a page fails 1.3.1, it doesn’t make landmarks required, it means that _something_ needs to be done, but not necessarily adding landmarks (although that is a good approach).

Can you live with the current proposal?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com<mailto:melledge@yahoo.com>>
Reply-To: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com<mailto:melledge@yahoo.com>>
Date: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:41
To: Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com<mailto:kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>>, 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

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<mailto:kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>> wrote:


+1

Kathy
CEO & Founder
Interactive Accessibility

T(978) 443-0798  F (978) 560-1251  C (978) 760-0682
E kathyw@ia11y.com<mailto:kathyw@ia11y.com>
www.InteractiveAccessibility.com<http://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<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