RE: CfC: Issue 171

Ø  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?

Take for example I have 5 links next to each other without other content separating them – with a screen reader either tabbing or using arrow keys or swipe gestures I can tell that there are links together as a group without any specific container or role.  In this case the relationship is communicated by the fact that they are all next to each other in a meaningful sequence.   Now if I had 5 links together with no separation and visually 3 belong to one group and the other 2 another group and the names of the links was not sufficient to tell the groupings apart then I would see a requirement to group and label them.

Jonathan

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 6:33 PM
To: Laura Carlson
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick; WCAG
Subject: 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<mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>> wrote:
+1

On 4/5/16, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto: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><mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk

> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility

>


--
Laura L. Carlson