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

Re: maincontent element

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:59:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VkyAqXzLS9obOXbfvxGmgA=O2qtjuygOdqwzAOUOrZe_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
hi Cameron, the same arguments you are using for <maincontent> could
be used for role=main

> i don't think that the majority of people read specifications, or pay
> attention to them even if they do. Far more people will use it more
> liberally than ever intended because it "makes sense to them".

> I would expect to start to see a "main content" wrapper inside almost
> every element, essentially as a replacement for <div>. We don't need
> another meaningless <div>.
>

considering the correct usage of ARIA role=main is so high some people
must have read the spec or read some source which correctly
interpreted the spec and people get the idea, its a simple one that is
hard to misinterpret kinda like <maincontent>

your statement 'Far more people will use it more liberally than ever
intended because it "makes sense to them"' is mere speculation it
would further discussion if you could provide some analogous data to
back up your statements (as I have).

> The great thing about ARIA is that it requires people to be explicit,
> and with the intention of providing accessibility. It won't be misused
> because that would defeat the point of specifying it in the first
> place.

the same could be said of a HTML and the <maincontent> element:

"It won't be misused because that would defeat the point of specifying
it in the first place."

regards
SteveF

On 10 September 2012 21:48, Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Steve Faulkner
> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>> hi Cameron,
>>
>> 'All of the suggested ones are too generic to be used without
>> ambiguity, anything could be regarded as "content" or even "main".'
>>
>>
>> the term 'main content' is specific not generic, coupled with the
>> requirment that it is only used once per page and it only being
>> allowed to be a child of body or a div thats a child would
>> considerably reduce any of your stated misuses.
>>
>
> i don't think that the majority of people read specifications, or pay
> attention to them even if they do. Far more people will use it more
> liberally than ever intended because it "makes sense to them".
>
> I would expect to start to see a "main content" wrapper inside almost
> every element, essentially as a replacement for <div>. We don't need
> another meaningless <div>.
>
>> if 'main ' was too generic I would expect to see it misused often in
>> the context of role=main. this is not the case [1]
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2012/04/html5-accessibility-chops-real-world-aria-landmark-use/
>>
>> regards
>>
>> SteveF
>>
>
> The great thing about ARIA is that it requires people to be explicit,
> and with the intention of providing accessibility. It won't be misused
> because that would defeat the point of specifying it in the first
> place.
>
> Thanks,
> Cameron Jones



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 20:00:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:34 UTC