- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:15:37 -0400
- To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BLU437-SMTP77FE404A548AC540312492FE9F0@phx.gbl>
If there is a visual indication of a Header, Footer, Navigation, etc... then knowledge of these sections should be available to people who are blind. This is why we have 1.3.1. Here is Gregg's comment about failures: ===== actually, you can document a failure if there is a fail — at any point in time. A fail is like a technique. Failures (full name is common failure ) is - something that ALWAYS fails the SC as written - is common - and therefore worth documenting. failures never modify WCAG - they just document what is a failure (ALWAYS a failure on all content) We can add failures at any time we see one we have to remove failures if things change and they are no longer ALWAYS a failure (or because we find times when they would not be a fail) ===== I have created a failure proposal here. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173 On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: > 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 22:16:09 UTC