Re: CfC: Issue 171

If headers, footers, navigation groups, asides, are visually identified,
what would be our rational for not requiring these relationships to be
known to blind people?

+1 to this.
“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."

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1
>
> On 4/5/16, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
>
>