WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Landmarks

for

From: Christine Hogenkamp
Date: Jan 14, 2020 12:46PM


For what it's worth, I just happened to test this in NVDA, and if the
landmark doesn't have role="main" etc used, it doesn't show up in the
Elements List section for Landmarks. It may seem redundant to have both
but does appear necessary/not redundant for some assistive devices.

--
*Christine Hogenkamp*
Front-end Developer

CONTEXT CREATIVE
317 ADELAIDE ST. W., #500 | TORONTO, ON CANADA | M5V 1P9
<https://maps.google.com/?q=317+ADELAIDE+ST.+W.,+%23500%C2%A0+%7C%C2%A0+TORONTO,+ON+CANADA%C2%A0+%7C%C2%A0+M5V+1P9&entry=gmail&source=g>

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:02 PM < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:

>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Swift, Daniel P." < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:52:56 +0000
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Landmarks
> I'm a little late getting into landmarks. I have a follow-up question to
> this thread. Is it redundant and unnecessary to include both the landmark
> and the HTML5 element? For example, is there any harm (from a SR
> perspective or otherwise) of using <header role="banner"> or <main
> role="main"> for instance? In my reading, it seems like redundancy is
> okay, but I know that from past experience, having the SR repeat the same
> things multiple times is obviously a bad thing.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Dan Swift
> Senior Web Specialist
> University Communications and Marketing
> West Chester University
> 610.738.0589
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On
> Behalf Of Birkir R. Gunnarsson
> Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 6:23 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Landmarks
>
> You could pin it un 1.3.1 or 4.1.1 (ARIA is not being used according to
> spec, so it feels like 4.1.1 is a valid argument).
> I push for people using the big 3 correctly, header/main/footer
> (banner/main/contentinfo) but usually stop there, because in my usability
> testing I didn't see anyone use landmarks and too many landmarks on a page
> quickly render them pretty useless.
> Your plague of banner landmarks is probably caused by use of the <header>
> element (it maps to the banner role if it is a child of the <body> element
> and should only be used in connection with <article> or <section> elements
> if not used for the webpage header).
> Jaws is overly generous when it comes to mapping the <header> element to a
> banner landmark.
>
>
> On 5/2/19, Steve Green < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> > My view is that it is a violation of 1.3.1 if landmarks are not used
> > or are used incorrectly. In most cases I would expect all page content
> > to be in at least one landmark - there may be exceptions where that is
> > not appropriate but I can't think of any.
> >
> > Steve Green
> > Managing Director
> > Test Partners Ltd
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of
> > Isabel Holdsworth
> > Sent: 02 May 2019 10:23
> > To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> > Subject: [WebAIM] Landmarks
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm currently auditing a web application that uses ARIA landmarks in a
> > very random fashion.
> >
> > I've discovered that using landmarks within a dialog causes JAWS 2018
> > to say nothing but "dialog" when trying to interact with elements
> > using the virtual cursor and sometimes the Tab key. So I'll recommend
> they stop doing this.
> >
> > On some pages they have a <div role="main"> wrapper around unique page
> > content, but they're not using header or footer roles. Is it OK to
> > have some content wrapped in landmarks and the rest not? I know that
> > ideally if landmarks are to be used at all they should be applied to
> > the whole page, but would not doing so constitute a WCAG 2.0 violation?
> >
> > I've found a few banner landmarks inside main landmarks - do you think
> > this would be a fail? If so under which guideline? 1.3.1 perhaps?
> >
> > Thanks as always, Isabel
> > > > > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > > > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > >
>
>