- From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:37:15 -0700
- To: jason@jasonjgw.net
- Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org
Correct. Checking static ARIA attributes is nothing more than a cosmetic check, and is only likely to confuse the situation regarding accessibility and automated checking even more. Jason White writes: > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:25:23AM +0100, Gez Lemon wrote: > > > It doesn't resolve the whole issue of ensuring that ARIA is used > > correctly with a native markup language, but if the ARIA specification > > is available in a machine readable format (such as what attribute > > values are valid for a particular attribute, and what attributes can > > be used with particular roles in RDF), we could build a basic > > validator to ensure at least the ARIA part is used according to its > > specification. > > Yes, but unless the validator includes a Javascript interpreter and a DOM > implementation, all that can be checked are the Aria attributes of the > document prior to the execution of scripts that modify it. > > Anything involving live regions or Javascript functions that change states or > properties would largely escape any lesser validator. Maybe the validator > needs to be written as a user agent extension that can verify correctness as > changes are made. > -- Best Regards, --raman Title: Research Scientist Email: raman@google.com WWW: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/ Google: tv+raman GTalk: raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com PGP: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2008 21:38:15 UTC