- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:38:44 +0100
- To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, wai-xtech-request@w3.org
On 03/09/2009 16:56, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > This is not a contradiction in ARIA principles. Today assistive > technologies are benefiting by being able to produce landmark navigation > interfaces like this. > > What you are suggesting is that browser should not take advantage of > curb cuts. We don't mandate that they provide this type of navigation > support but frankly we believe this is a usability curb cut they can > take advantage of. Counter view put by Aaron Leventhal: http://groups.google.com/group/free-aria/msg/1826be8e0919776c There's a real tension between ARIA as a side-effect-free AT repair-measure for divitis Ajax frameworks like Dojo or bridge to HTML5, and ARIA as a source of behavior-driving semantics for markup languages like SVG. I believe PFWG needs to resolve this tension and confusion with normative language. That could take the form of requiring host languages like HTML5 and SVG to provide normative resolution. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 16:39:30 UTC