WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Does SC1.3.1 require landmarks?

for

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Oct 13, 2020 12:11AM

On 13/10/2020 03:05, Guy Hickling wrote:
[...]
> 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.

Keeping in mind that positive techniques are not mandatory, i.e. you
don't fail because you're not using a positive technique.

> 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!

If you now want to go around failing a site for not using
<header>/<footer>, that's your prerogative. But not everybody doing
audits will agree with your draconian approach. There are many things
site should do that, if not done, have a massive impact on users with
disabilities and deserve a hard fail. Not using <header>/<footer> is, at
best, a technical failure in my book.

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