W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: [html-techs-tf] Minutes from July 23, 2012

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 08:48:51 +0100
Message-ID: <500E5363.1000201@cfit.ie>
To: adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>
CC: James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>, Protocols and Formats Working Group WG <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
adam solomon wrote:
> Does anyone have a concern over using examples that do not implement native
> semantic html? For instance, the example at hand uses images as buttons,
> when it could easily have used image buttons instead. Sure, it is good to
> know that this can be done when there is a need for it, hence the value of
> these examples, but for us, is there a danger that integrating these
> examples into wcag will lend the impression that this is a best practice,
> when it is actually not? Or, perhaps a clear note on the issue indicating
> that aria is reserved for situations when native html is not possible would
> suffice.
>   What say you

Yes, interesting point and worth discussion on a call. The issue of 
native semantics is important default fallback if ARIA is unsupported 
IMO and I appreciate you concern about codifying what may not be best 
practice (on the face of it). In the example that you site of using 
images for buttons - there are none.

However devs will do all sorts of 'non-standard' things with markup so 
it may be good to cover those instances also - in our examples. Thats 
one of the reasons why I think we should consider the JS library 
examples (as they refect what devs are doing in the wild).

We also face the issue of using ARIA to override native semantics (which 
according to spec is what should happen) and maybe provide some 
reference/guidance (like the API doc Steve, Cynthia and Jason put together).


Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2012 07:49:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:10 UTC