WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Does SC1.3.1 require landmarks?

for

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Oct 11, 2020 2:33PM

On 11/10/2020 21:13, Guy Hickling wrote:
[...]
> 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).

Saying that a site that does not use landmark elements/roles fails 1.3.1
would, in essence, make 90% of the web as it exists today
invalid/failing ... so I'm not sure it's quite as cut-and-dry (though
others have argued for this exact interpretation in the past).

I'd suggest that AT users can usually also infer different sections
purely from the order in which they appear in the content. Otherwise, we
could take this to a further extreme and say any time something like a
<div> is present (and styled to appear as a box, or simply styled in a
way that it's somehow self-contained/apart), it would fail if it didn't
somehow convey this structurally (and since a humble `<div>` doesn't get
announced, it would require something else like a role="group" and an
accessible name, or similar).

In general, rather than saying outright (in essence) if a site doesn't
use landmark elements/roles it fails, it's more about "is the page
understandable as is", and being a bit more pragmatic (while suggesting
as a best practice that yes, if possible, authors should consider using
landmarks).

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke