Re: Issue 171

To extend this thinking, consider a header which has a logo at the top of
the page and is distinguished by its unique background color relative to
the rest of the page. This visual cue of background color is really only a
style consideration. What relationship of structure is being conveyed here?
The fact that the header happens to be at the top of the page seems
irrelevant to structure.

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 06/04/2016 23:15, David MacDonald wrote:
>
>> 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)
>>
>
> And this is where I see a danger of making very broad statements about
> "visual indication" without actually considering the content and context.
> Conversely, if the basis of determining the failure is the "visual
> indication", what happens if the exact same markup that would fail under
> this new failure was simply styled NOT to have a distinct visual
> indication? Would that then be a pass?
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/173#issuecomment-206625763
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>