H97: Grouping related links using the nav element: Examples introduce confusion about using ARIA label/labelledby

[spanchang]

The technique clearly states , "When the nav element is employed more than once on a page, distinguish the navigation groups by using an aria-label or aria-labelledby attribute". This is in line with the text in ARIA11 that suggests multiple nav (or other repeated landmarks) elements to be disambiguated.
Example #2 "Multiple nav elements" for H97 supports the above.
It has:

What then are "Generic multiple nav elements" in example 3? The use of the term "best practice" confounds the practice for using aria-label / aria-labelledby to make nav regions distinct.
Essentially is there any difference between example #2 and #3?
Does it matter if the nav region is for primary nav, left-nav, breadcrumb nav etc.? If there are multiple nav regions they should be distinctly labelled and identifiable. No?
I request that this should be reviewed, the words "generic" and "best practice" be dropped.
Thanks,
Sailesh

[scottaohara]

The examples don't do a good job of explaining the difference in text, but reviewing the markup one can infer that example two demonstrates how to name the navigation elements to clarify which one is the navigation for the website, vs a navigation that is specific to the article which it is a descendant of.

Example 3 demonstrates how to distinguish two navigation regions that are likely globally repeating across a website, if not a set of related web pages.

These would probably be a lot more clear if each example built off from each other.

E.g., example one demonstrates that if there is only a single navigation defined for a web page, then it likely doesn't need a name because there's nothing that it would need to be distinguished from.

But, if there were multiple globally repeating navigations, then you would label them with appropriate names - "primary" and "secondary", for example.

Then, if there were additional navigations that may appear on a single page, or directly associated with an ancestor element / markup pattern, then name that navigation in a way that makes sense to its context.

Using the same names across examples 2 and 3 - rather than switching from "primary" to "site menu" would likely help mitigate confusion as well.

[spanchang]

I do not dispute what you said and I did review the markup.
The only concern is the use of the words "best practice" and the word "generic".
Some readers regard use of the NAV element or need to name them distinctly when these are repeated to be a best practice based on examples. I do not think that is the intent.
That's why I suggested that those words be dropped from the example section and brought in sync with the description for the technique.

[alastc]

If there are multiple nav regions they should be distinctly labelled and identifiable. No?

Should, yes. Required by 1.3.1? No.

There is no visible text to associate, so 1.3.1 can't be used to require that.

I request that this should be reviewed, the words "generic" and "best practice" be dropped.

Generic just means it is not specific, a generalised example. The term best practice is helpful to indicate it is not required by the associated SC.

[spanchang]

Hello Alastair,
Sure there is no visible text that says "primary" or "secondary" or "breadcrumb" for the nav regions but these are visually evident via presentation. SC 1.3.1 applies to make such relationships PD, do you not think so?
Compare this with heading levels : level 1, 2, 3, etc. is not visible text but the hierarchy is evident from presentation. Ref. H42 example 1.
Thanks,
Sailesh