WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: The importance of landmarks to screen readers?


From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Mar 29, 2021 7:25PM

I recommend landmark priarmily when users need to know the beginning
and end of the content. Headings onlhy mark the beginning. For users
to know where a section labeled by a heading ends, there must be a
heading, at the same level or lower, that marks the start of the next
independent section of content. This is not always the case, and then
you have to either put in a screen reader only heading or use the most
appropriate landmark.
And, well spotted Glen, this is why I disagree with the fact that
nesting a complementary landmark inside a main landmark is an outright
ARIA violation.
I see where they are coming from but I also think there´s a
fundamental disconnect between the spec and what works best for users.
If there is, I err on the side of the usability.

On 3/29/21, Peter Weil < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> 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)."
> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices/examples/landmarks/index.html
> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices/examples/landmarks/complementary.html
> 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.
> -Peter
> 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
> wrote:
>> 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
> > > > > > > > >

Work hard. Have fun. Make history.