W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > December 2012

Re: change proposal for <main>: possible validation warning heuristic for misuse

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 16:49:27 -0800
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Message-id: <7412CB16-B045-45DB-A2B1-99BB64E20993@apple.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>

<chair hat off>

I'm pretty convinced by your data. Nevertheless, I think the suggested changes would make the <main> spec even stronger.

Regards,
Maciej

On Dec 2, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all, 
> 
> have been analysing some of the data I collected previously [1]. Of 50 pages [2] I have looked at so far (from the set of 400+ pages[3] that I have added styles to provide easy visual identification of elements with id=main|content)   > 90% of elements with an id=main|content do indeed contain content that excludes header/nav/footer type content.
> 
> you can see the results and source pages for your selves:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlVP5_A996c5dHozOW14RkF4NEdEUFRvemxCZ2I4Z3c
> 
> I think this is a reasonable indication (please point out if my analysis is incorrect0 that there is a common concept of what is considered the main content area of a document and that fears of misuse of an element based on this concept are over emphasised.
> 
> Do I need to analyse more of the data set or is this enough?
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0109.html
> [2] starting from 296 in the list [RDS.ca]
> [3] http://www.html5accessibility.com/tests/HTML5-main-content/
> 
> regards
> SteveF
> 
> On 2 December 2012 19:10, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> On Dec 1, 2012, at 6:39 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I think this will be a lot more effective at limiting the harm from potential improper use of <main> than a conformance error. A conformance error is a discouragement for some authors, but most content is non-conforming. Meanwhile, implementation behavior can avoid incorrectly identifying the main content even in the face of authors who do not prioritize document conformance.
>> 
>> 
>> Could that also include a rule as to what to do in case there is both a <main> and a role="main" on the page? While it's a conformance error, browsers still need to decide which one to expose to AT. So, maybe in this case it would be best to expose the element with role="main" only?
> 
> Yes, I think it would be good to have rules to disambiguate cases like this. It probably makes the most sense for explicit role=main to win, but I could also imagine having whichever appears first win.
> 
> 
>> 
>>> I agree with this suggestion. I would also like to see "Scooby Doo" documented properly. I do wonder, however, since (if?) it is only accessibility related, whether it should be in the HTML spec, or in the mapping spec of Stever, or in a WCAG spec.
>> 
>> I think a "find the main content" algorithm has non-accessibility uses as well, for example for data mining tools, or for "readability" style tools or browser features.
>> 
>> Right. So it should indeed be part of the extension spec, and thus ultimately of HTML, right?
> 
> If the <main> extension ended up integrated in the HTML spec, then I think the HTML spec would clearly be the right place for a "find the main content" algorithm.
> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 3 December 2012 00:49:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 3 December 2012 00:49:59 GMT