WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Does SC1.3.1 require landmarks?

for

From: Guy Hickling
Date: Oct 11, 2020 2:13PM

The "Bypass blocks for a small website" thread on this forum has wandered
off on to other topics as well. So to simplify things I'm starting this new
thread on one of those topics to take it a bit further - the discussion
about whether SC1.3.1 requires landmarks.

SC1.3.1 says "....structure, and relationships conveyed through
presentation...". Almost all web pages are clearly presented in the form of
a page header at the top, with the main. usually unique content of the page
below that. And the majority of websites usually have a page footer as well.

If we look more closely at the contents of those areas, we almost
invariably find the the header consists largely of navigation and maybe
also website settings or other things to do with the site as a whole, while
the area underneath, as we all know if we have used the internet for more
than 5 minutes, has content specially for that page.

If we are in any doubt, on a particular website, as to whether the stuff at
the top is a header or not we only have to go to another page on the site
to see if it is a common header showing on other pages of the site as well.

So that is the presentation - a header, an area of unique content for the
page, and maybe a footer as well. Given that, SC1.3.1 says, either that
presentation must be conveyed programmatically, or by text.

I think the only way of conveying that in HTML is using the header, main
and footer elements. Or in ARIA we can use roles (though deprecated by the
first rule of ARIA in favour of using the HTML elements).

So I suggest, yes, SC1.3.1 does require either the use of the landmark
elements or roles, or the use of texts instead to identify those areas.
(But just adding texts would obviously not be a very sensible solution, and
be more effort for developers as well, so basically we end up using
landmarks).

Does that reasoning make sense?

I often use a similar reasoning whenever I'm in doubt as to whether
something is covered by 1.3.1 or not. Given that 1.3.1 is so vague it
doesn't actually specify any particular target construct at all in the
normative wording!

So I ask myself "is this a structure or relationship that is conveyed
visually (or even otherwise) to users?" If it is, then I report it as an
issue if it is not also conveyed either programmatically or by text.

Regards,
Guy Hickling
Accessibility Consultant