W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-aria@w3.org > February 2016

RE: Exposing multiple banner roles

From: Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 08:18:40 -0800
To: "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, 'Léonie Watson' <tink@tink.uk>
Cc: "'ARIA Working Group'" <public-aria@w3.org>
Message-ID: <024c01d16355$8a35b2c0$9ea11840$@Gmail.com>
Agree 100%. Authors SHOULD include only 1 banner per page.

 

Author SHOULD is a strong statement, which seems appropriate here.

 

At the same time, author SHOULD does not mean author MUST, which keeps the spec out of the undesirable place of legislating design.

 

Matt

 

From: Steve Faulkner [mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 7:10 AM
To: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
Cc: ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Exposing multiple banner roles

 

 

On 9 February 2016 at 12:12, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk <mailto:tink@tink.uk> > wrote:

The topic of discussion on the APG call yesterday, was whether we should
allow multiple instances of role="banner" within a document [1]

 

It is allowed currently no? 

It is a SHOULD[1] requirement to use only 1

SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
   may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
   particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
   carefully weighed before choosing a different course.


[1] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

We should optimise clear advice for the common once per page situation, as we know that there is an inverse relationship between number of landmarks and their utility (as reported by users).




--

Regards

SteveF

Current Standards Work @W3C <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/> 
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2016 16:19:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:58:20 UTC