WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: landmarks in landmarks

for

From: Lucy Greco
Date: Dec 12, 2013 11:20AM

Actually screen readers do jump to html5 regions the same way we move to
aria land marks. The newest version of jaws has at long last given us the
ability to jump to a main content landmark but I have not done enough
testing yet to see if it uses the html 5 equivalent yet. Not I want to
remind you that if you do mark up using both html 5 and aria on the same
markup it will say something like navigation region nave region on witch
does become to verbos. As a user I hait seeing to many navagation regons in
a page because they offen are not nav type elaments and it just gets far to
confusing wqitch nave regon do I want the first the second or the bottom one
or the nested one.

Lucia Greco,
Web Access Analyst
IST-Campus Technology Services
University of California, Berkeley
(510) 289-6008 skype: lucia1-greco
http://webaccess.berkeley.edu


-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Jacek Zadrozny
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 1:05 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] landmarks in landmarks

Thanks so much. But I have more questions. I read an article and I think
it's tru. But what about mixing HTML structural elements and landmarks?
OK. So if there is an footer element of HTML5 it means that using ARIA role
"content-info" is wrong? For me landmarks are for blind users to quickly
navigate to navigation, main content or footer. Most of screenreaders have
no navigation mechanism using HTML5 structural elements, but using
landmarks. So what is good solution? Is it invalid:
<footer aria-role="content-info">?
Jacek

W dniu 2013-12-11 17:32, Jared Smith pisze:
> It is OK to embed landmark roles within other landmark roles. However,
> I think it is assumed that the contentinfo landmark will contain links
> about the site, copyright, etc. While the ARIA specification does not
> state this, the HTML5 spec does clarify that <footer> (which maps to
> the contentinfo role - see
> http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2013/why-does-html-take-rolecontentinfo/)
> should not include <nav> (which maps to the navigation role) for such
> links.
>
> I also don't think of such links as "navigation" in the strictest
> sense. I would probably drop the navigation landmark from within the
> contentinfo landmark/footer.
>
> Jared
> > > list messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>


--
Jacek Zadrożny
http://informaton.pl
[AAA} All About Accessibility

messages to <EMAIL REMOVED>