Re: In WCAG NEXT let's put a date field on failures

My reading of WCAG is that 1.3.1 always required the visually distinct page sections to be either programmatically determinable or available in text even back in the day before landmarks and HTML5 structural sectioning elements. 

This is also how I feel, "WCAG is supposed to be ever green and technologically independent to give it a longer life. That's why we decided to make the very difficult decision to remove any mention of technology in the SCs. If we can't keep up with the most basic important accessibility feature such are regions, then we've failed at that goal…"

Thanks for trying to get a logically reasonable failure for missing landmarks into WCAG!

Paul J. Adam
Accessibility Evangelist 
www.deque.com

> On Apr 27, 2016, at 10:09 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> I did not fail sites on 1.3.1 for not making Headers, footers, navigation, and main content programatically determinable before the advent of Landmark​ s and HTML and I still don't although I point out that they should do this. and give that an issue number as an important practice, with minimal investment and high returns. Some clients do it, some clients say, "just give me the failures"
> 
> WCAG is supposed to be ever green and technologically independent to give it a longer life. That's why we decided to make the very difficult decision to remove any mention of technology in the SCs. If we can't keep up with the most basic important accessibility feature such are regions, then we've failed at that goal... There are very few sites existing today on the web that we'd be asked to evaluate that were made before Landmarks were in mainstream use around 2010. (6 years ago).