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

Re: aria vs native alternatives [was: Re: feedback requested on WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 document]

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:38:44 +0100
Message-ID: <4A9FF114.6010102@googlemail.com>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-xtech-request@w3.org
On 03/09/2009 16:56, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> This is not a contradiction in ARIA principles. Today assistive
> technologies are benefiting by being able to produce landmark navigation
> interfaces like this.
>
> What you are suggesting is that browser should not take advantage of
> curb cuts. We don't mandate that they provide this type of navigation
> support but frankly we believe this is a usability curb cut they can
> take advantage of.

Counter view put by Aaron Leventhal:

http://groups.google.com/group/free-aria/msg/1826be8e0919776c

There's a real tension between ARIA as a side-effect-free AT 
repair-measure for divitis Ajax frameworks like Dojo or bridge to HTML5, 
and ARIA as a source of behavior-driving semantics for markup languages 
like SVG.

I believe PFWG needs to resolve this tension and confusion with 
normative language.

That could take the form of requiring host languages like HTML5 and SVG 
to provide normative resolution.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 16:39:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:07 UTC