WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Bypass blocks for a small website

for

From: glen walker
Date: Oct 6, 2020 12:21PM

Wolfgang, keep in mind that WCAG is technology agnostic. It's not going to
specifically point out how to implement something because that would be
dependent on the technology.

You can't "interpret" normative, or rather, you can't add details to the
normative doc that isn't there. In your example for 1.3.1, all 1.3.1 says
is " Information, structure, and relationships conveyed through
presentation can be programmatically determined or are available in text."

Does that mean landmarks are required? I think it's dangerous to assume
that. Is there a "relationship" implied in the visual aspect of the page
that indicates that part of the page should be grouped together, for
example with a landmark? Perhaps. That's where the interpretation would
come in. You have to decide/interpret if there's a relationship (or
structure or information) implied. If so, then that relationship needs to
be programmatically determinable. One way to make that relationship
programmatically determinable is to use a landmark. But is it required?
Not really. This is similar to the 2.4.1 bypass blocks discussion. Skip
links are a great implementation for 2.4.1 but are they required? No.
Only a "mechanism" is required. Same with 1.3.1. The relationship needs
to be programmatically determinable. That doesn't mean the only way to do
that is with a landmark.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 12:00 PM < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Thanks Glen for information and clarification.
>
> I agree that a distinction between normative and moral requirements is
> necessary. But I'd like to add the requirement of an interpretation of
> normative materia, especially when the publishing date is sensitive for the
> content.
>
> So what would the authors of SC 1.3.1 have fixed as required, if landmarks
> were available in 2008?
>
> On the other hand: Why is there still no explicit requirement? (I didn't
> follow the discussions during the development of WCAG 2.1 and 2.2 very
> well.)
>
> But probably the WAI list and GitHub would be the right place for such a
> discussion.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>