Re: How long /hard is it to install the personlization.

>There was a long argument about whether landmarks were covered before we
started 2.1, which arguably we should bring up again now we are in 2.1.

(Ahem, *David McDonald*, what do you think about that?)


​This is an aside to the thread, but yes I would much appreciate a failure
of 1.3.1 (under WCAG Version 2.1, or WCAG 2.0), for not using Landmark
regions.​


Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Lisa,
>
>
>
> > I wrote the first draft of ARIA. Let me assure you we were basing it to
> make sure that we were trying to address new patterns as much as possible.
>
>
>
> I don’t understand, are you saying things like progressbar, spinbutton,
> scrollbar, tabs, menu etc. were ‘new’ patterns?
>
>
>
> Unless there’s been a lot of mis-communication I thought the point was it
> codified known software patterns into HTML? I.e. the patterns were not new,
> but the accessible implantation without an alternative was new.
>
>
>
> What I was saying was that it would help to find current patterns in
> websites that map to the semantics you want to add. I think quite a few
> will be covered under 1.3.1 (for those which are visually apparent) or
> 4.1.2 (restricted to user interface components).
>
>
>
> For example, hiding extraneous information could align with 1.3.1, ARIA
> landmarks and <main> weren’t reliable in 2008 but they are now. There was a
> long argument about whether landmarks were covered before we started 2.1,
> which arguably we should bring up again now we are in 2.1.
>
> (Ahem, *David McDonald*, what do you think about that?)
>
>
>
> If there is a reliable pattern (e.g. use of main), then it is *
> *relatively** easy to incorporate, if not in 1.3.1 then in 4.1.2.
>
>
>
> If we had a HTML technique for “Identify the primary content of the page
> with main”, that is something we can fail against in audits.
>
>
>
> Adding icons is for user-interface components (things within navigation if
> I understand the aim), might align with 4.1.2, if not perhaps it needs a
> new SC, but it would make sense to have a focused SC for that purpose
> rather than an SC intended to bring in a separate spec.
>
>
>
> What I’m fairly sure will *not work* is trying to specify what ‘core’
> content / functionality is. “Authors” simply don’t know in too many cases,
> and it is even harder for testers.
>
>
>
> Taking the approach of saying “something” is specified as non-core will
> punish simple sites which do not have extraneous stuff on the page.
>
>
>
> I think the closest WCAG 2.0 has is ‘essential’, for which the basic test
> is “can you remove it?”. Authors (site owners / designers etc) get that. I
> can’t see how to define ‘core’ beyond that. (Note that advertising is a key
> feature this concept should work for. If the site wouldn’t exist without
> advertising then it is essential to the website, but not to the user!)
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>