WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Does SC1.3.1 require landmarks?

for

From: Guy Hickling
Date: Oct 12, 2020 8:05PM

Thank you Patrick, for that reference to the previous conversation. (For
the record, several people were recommending that not using the landmark
elements should be made into a Fail technique. So a very interesting
reference indeed.)

Reading through that conversation, the main reason the suggestion was
turned down then was because people felt that making a Fail technique out
of it would attempt to change the nature or meaning of SC 1.3.1.

I don't think I agree with that argument, because the SC says what it says,
and would remain saying that regardless of the techniques suggested for it.
It does not single out any particular element or construct. The SC says
simply, "structure, and relationships conveyed through presentation".

In that regard websites have not changed in presentation of headers, main
content and footers since WCAG 2.0 was released in 2008. Most web pages
then had a header and a main content area visually, and usually a footer as
well, and they still do. Nothing has changed there. Since the SC is about
the presentation of the page, nothing we say about the use of particular
HTML elements will affect the SC's meaning.

What has changed is our attitude to those page areas. The HTML landmark
elements didn't even exist then (except possibly as a very early draft),
and we didn't think then in terms of defining the areas of a page. We now
accept as an accessibility matter that the header, main, footer and other
landmark elements should be used where appropriate (or the ARIA landmark
roles if necessary).

If, for the sake of argument, we accept that 1.3.1 does say we should
identify landmark areas where appropriate, then we should have followed it
in 2008. Just because we didn't do that doesn't mean the SC wasn't telling
us to do so, and therefore doesn't mean we are trying to change the meaning
of the SC by accepting we should do so now. It just means we have been
somewhat belated in our recognition of the need.

(BTW: Since the HTML elements didn't exist when WCAG 2.0 came out, so we
would have to have used the 1.3.1 alternative, of saying it in text -
probably one of the reasons it didn't occur to us then!)

What I also think is an issue, is that we have a Technique for using the
ARIA landmark roles, but don't seem to have an HTML Technique for the
equivalent HTML elements. If we have one we should have the other.

One other argument raised in the above mentioned conversation is that it is
not always obvious, on some websites, whether there is a clearly presented
header or footer or main area. But that is true of other things. It often
isn't always obvious whether some "headings" are really headings or not.
Sometimes it comes down to a matter of opinion. Other SCs meet similar
vagueness in content, and some SCs are themselves as vague as 1.3.1. I
would say, for all vague cases, if it isn't clear then we don't have to
raise it as a WCAG failure.

To me, then,
1) SC1.3.1 clearly says "structure, and relationships conveyed through
presentation" must also be conveyed programmatically (or by text).
2) Most websites clearly present a header and a main content area.
3) So 1.3.1 mandates the landmarks at least as strongly as it mandates the
heading elements!