WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: The importance of landmarks to screen readers?

for

From: Joe Humbert (A11y)
Date: Mar 30, 2021 6:47AM

https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/1469#issuecomment-774730497

Just an FYI. I asked similar questions around complimentary landmarks to the W3C last year via their github.

Thankx,
Joe Humbert, CPWA
Accessibility Champion
Android & iOS Accessibility Novice
Twitter: @joehumbert

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of Steve Green
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 4:41 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] The importance of landmarks to screen readers?

Birkir, everything in the specification contradicts your viewpoint. There are statements that the complementary landmark should be at the top level and there are statements that it is at the same level as the main landmark. There is also a statement that it is related to the main landmark, which only makes sense if it is not inside it. There is not a single aspect of the specification or the examples that supports your view that the complementary landmark can be inside the main landmark. You are relying entirely on the bad drafting of the specification, which omits the word MUST where it is clearly the author's intention.

I profoundly hope that the W3C engage professional standards authors for WCAG 3.0 to avoid this sort of nonsense. It's too important to leave to enthusiastic amateurs. The countless discussions we have had in this forum show that there is a massive problem with ambiguity, errors, omissions and contradictions. I think it's amazing that people have given up so much of their time, presumably unpaid, to write the specifications and examples we have had to date, but it's time to improve the quality.

Steve


-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Sent: 30 March 2021 02:25
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] The importance of landmarks to screen readers?

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/complement
> ary.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
> < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> 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
>>
>>
>>
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.