No HTML Landmarks techniques present, only ARIA

[jake-abma]

There are two ARIA techniques present for Landmarks, but none for HTML, they should be added.

• https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/ARIA11
• https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/ARIA13

First rule of ARIA is if you can use a native HTML element [HTML51] or attribute with the semantics and behavior you require already built in, instead of re-purposing an element and adding an ARIA role, state or property to make it accessible, then do so.

Except for IE all elements are well supported these days: http://www.html5accessibility.com/#sections

[johnfoliot]

Hi Jake, Two questions: 1) what kind of Techniques (Success or Failure), and 2) for which SC? I ask, because in the past a Landmarks Failure technique for SC 1.3.1 failed to reach consensus, as it was seen by many as an attempt to redefine that SC. I would hope we could avoid that Merry-go-round again. JF

…

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018, 7:49 AM Jake Abma ***@***.***> wrote: There are two ARIA techniques present for Landmarks, but none for HTML, they should be added. - https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/ARIA11 - https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/ARIA13 First rule of ARIA is if you can use a native HTML element [HTML51] or attribute with the semantics and behavior you require already built in, instead of re-purposing an element and adding an ARIA role, state or property to make it accessible, then do so. Except for IE all elements are well supported these days: http://www.html5accessibility.com/#sections — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#422>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABK-c0dKyeikUKlHclHNkLK4mJV_Yr8xks5uDgtogaJpZM4VD0u1> .

[jake-abma]

Hi John,

Let's not go that way... :-) !
So they would be "Additional Techniques (Advisory)"
I see now the ARIA ones are sufficient and should also be additional/advisory if you ask me.

I just came across an inconsistency working out my Landmark section: (http://www.a11yportal.com/training/code/semantic-structure-and-navigation.html#landmarks) and didn't see the HTML variants of ARIA11 and ARIA13

Cheers!

[johnfoliot]

Hi Jake, +1 I would support positive outcome technique(s) for Landmarks, either as Success or Advisory techniques going forward. JF

…

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018, 10:20 AM Jake Abma ***@***.***> wrote: Hi John, Let's not go that way... :-) ! So they would be "Additional Techniques (Advisory)" I see now the ARIA ones are sufficient and should also be additional/advisory if you ask me. I just came across an inconsistency working out my Landmark section ( http://www.a11yportal.com/training/code/semantic-structure-and-navigation.html#landmarks) and didn't see the HTML variants of ARIA11 and ARIA13 Cheers! — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#422 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABK-c8ealsaP6zNnNjoH_119XkkoaSO0ks5uDi7BgaJpZM4VD0u1> .

[alastc]

Hi Jake,

Would you like to add those yourself? They don't fit under the new ones in 2.1, but we should use the same process for adding them now.

Also, does it matter that FF doesn't map the name/description? Looks like a bit of a hole, but I haven't tested if that impacts NVDA/FF (for example).

-Alastair

[awkawk]

These are listed at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Techniques/HTML5 (under 1.3.1 and 2.4.1) so closing this issue.