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:


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 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:51 UTC