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

Re: Using ARIA in HTML

From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 03:15:50 -0700
Cc: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-id: <6B8D6C1F-6C55-4E84-B6DE-A4029CE4992F@apple.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>

On Jul 4, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi James, thanks!
> 
> I have rephrased the header to:
> 
> 'Should authors explicitly define Default ARIA semantics? '

The word "default" is part of what I find confusing here. It's obviously not the default, or there would be no need to define it. All implementations have a *default* semantic for those elements, but sometimes that default is not according to spec. I think what you trying to convey here is "Should authors explicitly define the ARIA semantic that should-be-but-is-not-actually the default?" Obviously you don't want a title that long, but I still think your meaning is unclear with your current phrasing.

> >Does a NO here mean it doesn't use the default semantics? If so, what does that even mean? 
> 
> the meaning is defined in the table legend (above table)
> 	 NO = the default semantics are already implemented by browsers, so the default implied role, state or property associated with an element or attribute does not need to be used. There are notes indicating under certain circumstances default semantics are useful.
> 	 N/A = there are no default ARIA semantics, but there may well be accessibility API semantics implemented by the browser.
> 	 Yes = the default semantics are not implemented across browsers, so the default implied role, state, property, or suggested semantics (if no ARIA default) may be used.

I see now my phrasing in the form of a question was rather unclear. Apologies.

I understood what NO meant in this context but was trying to convey the confusion that other readers might have when reading this table, based on that easily misconstrued header title.


> hope that is clearer now.
> 
> regards
> Stevef
> 
> 
> On 4 July 2012 10:33, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> On Jul 2, 2012, at 2:29 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I have published a draft of a practical guide for developers:
>> Using ARIA in HTML
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/aria-unofficial/raw-file/tip/index.html
>> 
>> feedback welcome!
> 
> I think this heading is a little confusing:
> Use default ARIA semantics?
> 
> Does a NO here mean it doesn't use the default semantics? If so, what does that even mean? Perhaps you meant to call it "Use additional ARIA semantics" or something to that effect.
> 
> I might instead phrase it:
> Should authors explicitly define ARIA attributes and/or role?
> 
> You might note *why* you said YES on form. I assume it's because of the ARIA landmark benefit. Ditto for other landmarks like nav/navigation, etc.
> 
> Looks good. Thanks for putting this together.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 Wednesday, 4 July 2012 10:16:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:30 UTC