hi jim, >Why can't lynx or firefox use the aria-* attributes? If (as suggested) the aria >spec itself forbids this, then I think that is a bug in the aria spec. can you explain this statement a bit further? what do you mean by use? regards steve 2009/9/2 Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com> > A few weeks ago, in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/0899.html > > Smylers wrote: > >> Aria is specifically about accessibility for those with disibilities. > >> A user without any disabilities using, say, Lynx or Firefox with images > >> turned off, would not be using any technology that processes aira-* > >> attributes. As such she would not see an alternative to the missing > >> image, and would not know the purpose of the link. > > Ian agreed with: > > ARIA is intended as an accessibility API layer above the semantics > > of HTML ... last resort ... even with ARIA as an integral part of the > > language ... I don't think that removing ARIA markup should ever > > make a page non-conforming. > > Why can't lynx or firefox use the aria-* attributes? If (as suggested) the > aria > spec itself forbids this, then I think that is a bug in the aria spec. > > For "alt" in particular, it makes sense to keep using the legacy attribute, > because of the installed base. For new elements, I see nothing wrong > with defining accessibility or fallback in terms of ARIA-* attributes, and > I see nothing wrong with mainstream user agents relying on those > attributes when they need information that the aria-* attributes supply. > > If anything, I think it would be a positive good, as mistakes in aria-* > would > then become more visible. > > -jJ > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.htmlReceived on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 14:14:41 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:16:06 GMT