W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > May 2011

[Bug 11557] Authors should not be allowed to specify roles on elements that they already have by default

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 19:03:16 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QJVjg-0004MG-QA@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11557

--- Comment #28 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2011-05-09 19:03:13 UTC ---
As the original bug filer, I completely agree that we should only prohibit
roles that really serve no purpose.  So if <button role=button
aria-pressed=true> will be processed differently from <button
aria-pressed=true>, then the role=button should be allowed in that case. 
Likewise, we should allow redundant roles on new elements like <details> that
browsers won't know about yet, because they can be useful in practice.

But something like <a role=link href=foo> should raise a validator warning or
error, because it means the author misunderstands what role="" does.  The
validator error message can take the opportunity to explain to the author what
role="" actually does, so that they can use it more correctly in the future.

So if everyone is okay with this, we just need a list of what roles should be
allowed despite being redundant.  The current sentence that was left in the
WHATWG spec ("Authors must not set the ARIA role and aria-* attributes to
values that match the default implicit ARIA semantics defined in the following
two tables") is too broad.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 9 May 2011 19:03:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:38 GMT