- From: Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 11:33:23 +0000
- To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
This older post by the mighty Steve Faulkner got me thinking about the proposals for extending aria. I'm not criticising these extensions but wanted to raise some thing that has be nagging at me. The underlying question in my mind is how do we get authors to use new ARIA attributes for coga? It's proved not easy to get ARIA widely used. http://html5doctor.com/on-html-belts-and-aria-braces/ In this article Steve points out that the belt a braces approach of adding ARIA to built in controls is not needed with newer browsers. The reason is the browser assigns default semantics and exposes those via the a11y APIS. This is exactly how it should be and leaves ARIA markup to be most useful when defining custom controls and structure. In contrast, if I correctly understand the suggestions, we are proposing an extension to this model of ARIA articulating predefined semantics. The new attributes are unlikely to ever be useful for a default semantic for controls or structure. Rather they are for authors to add semantics to their content and structure which clarify intent and as such they can be no default semantics. Content and structure may operate at a higher level of semantics, rather like custom controls and so always need to be described. I still worry we'll have a job getting authors to actually use the new attributes. Perhaps this doesn't matter much as the ARIA provides semantics in both cases. However, the proposed coga_ prefix may be useful as it helps keep this potential difference in mind Thoughts? Steve Lee OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Received on Friday, 6 November 2015 11:33:52 UTC