- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:04:14 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
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