Re: CfC: Issue 171

Technique H69 provides a precedence of indicating regions of a page from
the beginning of WCAG.

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:32 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>