- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 08:58:29 +0000
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Alastair wrote: >It could also provide more context about the technology, e.g. ‘if ARIA is part of your Accessibility Supported list, then if is a failure not to use landmarks for 1.3.1’. Patrick wrote: >But surely it still isn't, regardless what the author/site owner >considers their "accessibility supported" baseline of technologies, if >they do still provide some other technique that doesn't use ARIA to >satisfy that part of 1.3.1. It's not like they entered a binding >contract that now forces them to only ever use ARIA techniques... Sorry, I stated that too harshly. I was thinking that you’d have a “warning” about not using landmarks for 1.3.1, with related links to other techniques. (Amazon style “you were looking at this so you might be interested in these…) I see the concept of ‘warning’ as the opposite of a best-practice, or perhaps the lack of a best practice, rather than a guaranteed failure. It is the digital nature of ‘failure’ that makes it so hard to create new ones. -Alastair
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2016 08:58:59 UTC