WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: The importance of landmarks to screen readers?


From: Peter Weil
Date: Mar 29, 2021 7:04PM

The ARIA Landmark Examples pages do use the word "should". These read like a normative document, but they're technically not part of the specification (are they?).

" banner, main, complementary and contentinfo landmarks should be top level landmarks.
"complementary landmarks should be top level landmarks (e.g. not contained within any other landmarks)."


I don't know what these example pages' exact technical or normative status is, but if they incorrectly reflect the spec, that seems like a problem. If they do, then the proper usage of complementary landmarks seems pretty clear. I wonder whether there is anyone who can tell us which of these is true.

On 3/29/21, 2:09 PM, "WebAIM-Forum" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

Agreed, but it's not a violation if that is not followed. If the spec said
"Authors MUST (or SHOULD) specify a complementary landmark outside the main
content...", then *that* would be a violation if not followed.

Like I said, I know my point was nit-picky, but I tend to be pretty literal
about "violations" of spec only if they go against MUST/SHOULD sections.

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:19 AM Steve Green < <EMAIL REMOVED> >

> The specification also states "The complementary role indicates that
> contained content is relevant to the main content." That only makes sense
> if the complementary landmark is outside the main content.
> Steve