W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2008

Re: Implementing aria: -- examples and methodology

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 15:07:32 +0200
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: "Aaron M Leventhal" <aleventh@us.ibm.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-xhtml2@w3.org" <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, "wai-xtech@w3.org" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ubw2qud364w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Thu, 29 May 2008 14:54:51 +0200, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>  
wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren writes:
>> On Thu, 29 May 2008 13:51:08 +0200, Henry S. Thompson
>> <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>  wrote:
>>> These tests were converted from the 'aria-' iCITA examples using the
>>> above methodology, very easily, and work in IE 7 as well as Firefox,
>>> Opera and Safari (and, with an edited and rebuilt accessibility
>>> module in Firefox 3b5, with the ORCA screen-reader).
>>
>> These tests are HTML-only, use class names to work around styling
>> deficiencies of your proposal and don't demonstrate at all that aria:
>> is  somehow a better alternative to aria- in my opinion.
>
> Not so, please look again, there are two identical files, one served
> as text/html and the other as application/xhtml+xml.  They both work.

Very well, I should've been more careful. Though again, it relies on class  
names to work around styling deficiencies of your proposal and doesn't  
demonstrate that aria: is better than aria-. Just that it's more complex.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 13:08:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:17 GMT