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

Re: aria-kbdshortcuts feedback

From: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:25:31 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFz-FYy4AKeHh11cqd2psHH6JezRL1aHf0T1cGOo02EfmhEOoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Cc: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>, ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:14 PM James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:

> Note the time. I agree with John Foliot. ;-)
>
> In addition, an accesskey replacement spec would have the ability to
> specify end use behavior (and event model changes) in a way that would be
> inappropriate to do in an ARIA spec. Dominic, would you be willing to
> pursue the solution in that spec rather than in ARIA?
>

No, but I support doing both in parallel and making them compatible if
possible. If we like the accesskey spec, maybe we should call it
aria-accesskey and align its syntax.

The majority of ARIA roles, states, and properties are not necessary if you
use appropriate HTML5 elements and attributes, but that doesn't mean we
deprecate them, it means authors have choices. It's preferable to use the
native elements and attributes when possible, but when you need to roll
your own approach for various reasons, ARIA allows you to do so without
sacrificing accessibility.

I think that applies here. It's a lot easier for an existing web app to add
aria-kbdshortcuts support than to switch to accesskeys, and it's less risky
and requires less testing.
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2016 21:26:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:58:21 UTC