W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > July 2014

Re: Implied ARIA Roles

From: Craig Francis <craig@craigfrancis.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 07:32:12 +0100
Cc: "www-validator@w3.org" <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-Id: <83238049-2BEA-4B44-B1A1-D563EA7C552B@craigfrancis.co.uk>
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
> On 23 Jul 2014, at 05:57, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
> No, because the specifications do not say that the scope attribute has an impact on default ARIA semantics.

Thanks for the detailed reply Jukka, I'll accept your answer on SO when I get to my main computer.

And I do understand the specifications point of view (I'll see what kinds of discussion are happening over there later today), but if ARIA is going to stand any chance of adoption, it will have to be easy for developers to implement (which defiantly means no duplication, and for developers to start by adding a single attribute or two).

You can also see that other developers, and well myself included, are phasing out the <footer role="contentinfo"> in preference to just a <footer>, likewise for the main, nav, and header elements introduced in HTML5 (admittedly still waiting for VoiceOver to handle these).

Personally I think the ARIA roles should just start / inherit a default role when possible... and while you do have a point that tables have historically been used for layout, and is probably still the case 14 years later (assuming the CSS revelation happened in 2000), there is still "role=presentation" that could override this, assuming those old websites would add it (unlikely I know, but I suspect such a site will have larger accessibility issues than this):

Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2014 06:32:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:18:11 UTC