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

RE: Exposing multiple banner roles

From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 22:24:15 +0000
To: Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>, Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com>, "tink@tink.uk" <tink@tink.uk>, "public-aria@w3.org" <public-aria@w3.org>
Message-ID: <SN1PR0301MB1535D8DB4373435210BD04C3C6D70@SN1PR0301MB1535.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
When I hear "banner" I assume it's an image role, for a banner ad. A banner add is one part of the header of a page.  I know this isn't what is meant by role=banner, but I still have to think about it every time I see it.

On that facebook page, I would mark the blue facebook bar at the top as a toolbar, not a header. The BEAT Children's Theater area as a header/banner, the chat sidebar on the right as navigation (or maybe some sort of widget), and copyright stuff at the bottom of the first column as a footer.  

Also, I think it would greatly improve usability if the HTML and ARIA names for the same thing were... the same.  I've recently been working on how to make aria and html landmarks make sense to users, and the name conflicts are really a problem.  The thing is called a header or a banner, based on how the web developer marked it up, but it's the same thing. I think the HTML names are more usable.

This common page structure (from html) makes sense

This one from ARIA, which describes the same page structure, really doesn't.  Well, it doesn't unless you understand newspaper publishing and content architecture

Content Information

-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Garaventa [mailto:bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 9:32 PM
To: Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com>; tink@tink.uk; public-aria@w3.org
Subject: RE: Exposing multiple banner roles

Unfortunately I'm one who has been confused by role=banner.

After all, role=heading refers to headings, role=img refers to images, role=link refers to links, role=banner refers to banners...

QED, right?


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt King [mailto:a11ythinker@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 7:52 PM
To: Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>; tink@tink.uk; public-aria@w3.org
Subject: RE: Exposing multiple banner roles

I am not sure we even have a problem; I have not seen overuse of the banner role. Have you?

Banner has lots of meanings in tech now. IOS, for example, has popularized yet another meaning.

If there is confusion over the meaning of the banner role, I would be surprised if adding header as a synonym would reduce the confusion.

On the other hand, footer as a synonym for contentinfo may be very helpful.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Garaventa [mailto:bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 9:22 AM
To: tink@tink.uk; public-aria@w3.org
Subject: RE: Exposing multiple banner roles

I think one of the primary confusions relating to role='banner' is the role name itself.

This is largely a terminology conflict.


Most standard developers see that role="banner" is meant to identify these areas on a page, because of this word, and a web page may contain many banners like this.

The role would be much clearer if it matched the HTML5 name for this.

-----Original Message-----
From: Léonie Watson [mailto:tink@tink.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 4:13 AM
To: public-aria@w3.org
Subject: Exposing multiple banner roles

The topic of discussion on the APG call yesterday, was whether we should allow multiple instances of role="banner" within a document [1]. The example being discussed was a facebook page [2].

The scenario: there is a region of content that contains information about Beat Children's Theatre. It has two images followed by a heading, then some other content. I think the argument is that this region should be exposed as a banner because there is no other convenient way to navigate to the start of it.

I'm hesitant to use a single example as a basis for changing a spec, but apparently this is a common pattern on the web. With this particular use case, the navigation problem could be solved without exposing an additional banner role.

The first of the two images before the heading has an improbably long alt text (500+ words). The alt text contains information (performance dates, theatre location., cast and crew listing) that is not available in the image itself. The result is that for screen reader users there is a substantial amount of content before the heading, making the heading an impractical navigational hook. Giving the image a reasonable alt text would make a significant difference.

The heading itself could be moved before the two images. This would not seriously impact the visual presentation of the content.

If a landmark was absolutely needed, then the region role could be applied to the containing <div> and a suitable label provided.
Part of the argument was that this region of content represented a "site within a site". I'm not convinced this is a distinction many people would naturally make, but if someone really wanted to represent it in this way, then applying the document role on the parent <div> and then using the <header> element therein would do the trick.

Conceptually, a single header, main and footer for each page makes sense. I think that exposing multiple banners within a single document will rapidly make pages much less usable for screen reader users.

[1] https://www.w3.org/2016/02/08-aria-apg-minutes.html
[2] https://www.facebook.com/BEATonline.org/

@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2016 22:24:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:23:19 UTC