W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > August 2015

Re: ARIA or RDFA?

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:22:33 -0500
To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Cc: "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFEAAD9F5E.E99F4F88-ON86257E96.00592580-86257E96.0059F49C@us.ibm.com>

My experience is that many people simply don't understand RDF. It was a
tremendous hurdle getting people to adopt and understand ARIA. Introducing
yet another technology would be a significant undertaking.


Rich Schwerdtfeger



From:	"lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
To:	"public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Date:	08/03/2015 09:50 AM
Subject:	ARIA or RDFA?



Liddies proposal was to use RDFa whereever possible inplace of an aria
extention
The simplese case would look like
<button type="button" property="http://scehma.org/coga/terms/save
">default</button>
in place of

<button type="button" aria-function="undo" >default</button>


There are many ways to write it such as
<body vocab="http://scehma.org/coga/terms ">
<button type="button" property="save">default</button>
this might make it harder for simple user agents to parse and manipulate
it.  I also think in some cases it makes it more complex to use.

I do not think  everything will work as RDFa such as aria-importance or
aria-numberfree, so we would still be doing an aria extension.


I think we should look at the metadata  and see if there is a more RDF
compatible way to write it. However the linked data inline should be only
for easyread alternatives.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

Athena ICT Accessibility Projects
LinkedIn, Twitter



graycol.gif
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

Received on Monday, 3 August 2015 16:23:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:13:28 UTC