Re: Issue 171

On 06/04/2016 19:27, Adam Solomon wrote:
> As I indicated previously I am against this proposal as it implies that
> header/footer/nav require programmatic conveyance of structure.
> Where text headers are present to indicate such a structure then
> semantic headers or alternatives would be required. Otherwise, I don't
> recall any mention of such a requirement before landmarks came on the
> scene. I also don't recall any particular technique which was employed
> for this purpose before landmarks, meaning that there were no accessible
> sites before landmarks. I also didn't find any such markup on the w3c
> home page for the header and the footer.

Agree with this line of reasoning. Indeed, I mentioned this as well in 
the earlier discussion 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016AprJun/0026.html

In short: it's not just about whether ARIA landmarks are required, but 
if header/footer/etc actually *must* be identified in all situations.

P

> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com
> <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
>
>     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 <mailto: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 <tel:%28978%29%C2%A0443-0798>*F* (978) 560-1251
>     <tel:%28978%29%C2%A0560-1251>*C* (978) 760-0682
>     <tel:%28978%29%C2%A0760-0682>
>     *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
>
>
>


-- 
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 20:04:39 UTC