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
