W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: <header> / <footer> & ARIA (was: Re: Proposal: <content> element)

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:51:31 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80908280351p3f79e516pa5f62cdf6fd38bf5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
looking at
http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/naming_conventions_table.html
data from there:
http://www.themaninblue.com/ <div id="footer">

 http://www.wubbleyew.com/ <div id="header">

http://hivelogic.com/ <div class="box" id="header">

http://stopdesign.com/   <div class="footer1" id="footer">

 http://www.hicksdesign.co.uk/journal/   <div id="footer">

note have only gone through the first few sites listed.

if you look at the sites their use of footer and or header maps onto the
aria landmarks single use for a chunk of the page banner = top of page and
contentinfo = bottom of page

if anybody thinks its worhwhile i would be happy to do a full survey of the
data
http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/naming_conventions_table.html
regards
stevef
2009/8/28 Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>

>
> the example for footer in the html 5 spec does not fit the definition of
> contentinfo in the ARIA spec.
>
> the footer example contains just a link and appears both at the top and
> bottom of the example code.
> <footer><a href="../">Back to index...</a></footer>
>
> in no way should its use in the example be considered equivalent to the
> contentinfo role, and if you think it does, then the contentinfo role
> definition needs to be tightened up.
>  >firstly sorry to answer a question with a question, but where is the
> >rationale for allowing multiple headers and footers in a page?
>
> you didn't actually supply a rationale?
>
> >I'm just trying to understand the rationale for why ARIA put the
> restrictions the way it did, so that we can put them on the equivalent HTML5
> elements as well.
>
> a possible rationale: dividing a page up into large  regions that contain
> particular types  of content and/or functionality commonly found on web
> pages, provides a mechanism for users to quickly navigate to or ignore a
> chunk of the page, before navigating down into more fine grained structures.
>
>
> >I have certainly seen the <footer> construct in the wild. E.g. on
>  >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1293.html
>
> i don't follow?
>
> regards
> stevef
>
>  2009/8/28 Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
>
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:55:40 +0200, Steven Faulkner <
>> faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> hi ann,
>>>
>>
>> It's Anne.
>>
>>
>> firstly sorry to answer a question with a question, but where is the
>>> rationale for allowing multiple headers and footers in a page?
>>>
>>
>> From looking at HTML5 I find this for <header>: "The header element can
>> also be used to wrap a section's table of contents, a search form, or any
>> relevant logos." <footer> includes an example containing multiple <footer>
>> elements.
>>
>>
>> I have seen the data, from google etc, but there appears to be no data on
>>> authors using header and footer constructs in the way described in the
>>> spec.
>>>
>>
>> I have certainly seen the <footer> construct in the wild. E.g. on
>>
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1293.html
>>
>> Not sure where the <header> pattern can be found.
>>
>>
>> landmarks are navigational regions http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#region
>>>
>>> banner is defined here http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#banner
>>> contentinfo is defined here http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#contentinfo
>>>
>>> there is more detail here about structuring web pages using landmarks :
>>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-practices/#kbd_layout
>>>
>>
>> But these are definitions right, not why it was done this way?
>>
>>
>> I am not saying that header/footer as specced should not be supported by
>>> AT but if they appear multiple times in a document they should not be
>>> considered landmarks and should be supported in a different way to
>>> landmarks.
>>>
>>
>> I'm just trying to understand the rationale for why ARIA put the
>> restrictions the way it did, so that we can put them on the equivalent HTML5
>> elements as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Anne van Kesteren
>> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> with regards
>
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG Europe
> Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
>
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
> Web Accessibility Toolbar -
> http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 10:52:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:44 GMT