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


From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:43:37 +0000
To: Neil Milliken <Neil.Milliken@bbc.co.uk>, Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com>
CC: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <SN1PR0301MB153542285D62A0F4BE0C7D42C6770@SN1PR0301MB1535.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
+1 RDF is not well supported by browsers or well understood by devs. ARIA is what people use for accessibility.

Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Neil Milliken<mailto:Neil.Milliken@bbc.co.uk>
Sent: 8/3/2015 2:59 PM
To: Steve Lee<mailto:steve@opendirective.com>
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger<mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com>; lisa.seeman<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: ARIA or RDFA?

+1 to Rich & Steve I think RDFA will just add to confusion in the dev community.

Sent from my iPad

On 3 Aug 2015, at 18:24, "Steve Lee" <steve@opendirective.com<mailto:steve@opendirective.com>> wrote:

+1 to Richard

RDF is understood / popular in academic circles and of course TBL for the semantic web but I don't think anywhere else such as general web dev community.

We dev is complex enough already - just see recent posts by PPK and Bruce Lawson :)


Steve Lee
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

On 3 August 2015 at 17:22, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com<mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com>> wrote:

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

<graycol.gif>"lisa.seeman" ---08/03/2015 09:50:15 AM---Liddies proposal was to use RDFa whereever possible inplace of an aria extentionThe simplese case wo

From: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>>
To: "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto: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 <http://accessibility.athena-ict.com/>
LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
Received on Monday, 3 August 2015 22:44:10 UTC

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