W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: HTML5 DL Element vs. WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria

From: Jan Heck <jan@id4theweb.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:29:25 -0800
To: Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com>, WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CF1AF0A0.15154%jan@id4theweb.com>
I don't know, Olaf. In the instructional/educational environment, we use
definition lists a lot to present glossaries of terms, Q&As (which are
essentially the same thing), or other paired items. I really don't think
an ordered or unordered list meets the same need or matches the semantics
nearly as well, so I can't agree that nobody needs DLs.

The issue of the failure of AT to support DLs is one I'm struggling with
now, in light of this thread. I'm quite torn between the the argument to
use the correct semantic element versus the argument that presently,
screen readers don't "deliver the goods" re: DLs. I always try to make my
instructional sites both accessible AND semantically correct, and I never
heard (before this discussion) that there was an issue with DLs. So I
would hope that by filing bugs with various AT vendors, they respond
appropriately, but as others have said, who knows?

On 2/7/14 1:15 PM, "Olaf Drümmer" <olaf@druemmer.com> wrote:

>I guess if a survey was made among people coding for or developing
>content in HTML, over 90% of them would not be familiar with the concept
>of "definition lists". I am still struggling myself to think of use cases
>in any of the content I have been in charge of during the last twenty
>years where definition lists would have made any sense, or even provided
>added (semantic) value.
>Definition lists look like somebody thought a while ago that special case
>handling was necessary for this special type of list, and introduced the
>definition list tags. In essence though, nobody needs definition lists.
Received on Saturday, 8 February 2014 04:29:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:50 UTC