W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2010

RESOLUTION: The TF opposes the change proposals to remove the elements

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 12:46:46 -0500
Message-ID: <m2v1c8dbcaa1004081046v5f141d75hc5a937a3cec6a986@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Cc: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
At the HTML Working Group meeting today [1], Cynthia pointed out a
resolution that was made at this week's Accessibility Task Force the
Face to Face Meeting. [2]

"RESOLUTION: The TF opposes the change proposals to remove the
elements listed above. We maintain the work item to check them and
make them good."


At this point I am undecided about Shelley's Change Proposals to
remove the set of interactive elements. Therefore, I cannot say I
oppose them, because I don't know if I do or not. I cannot in clear
conscience oppose them.

Counter proposals by individuals would help me to decide. That is
happening outside of the task force in the HTMLWG [3] which is fine.

Some things to cover:

I have always used the three legged stool approach to web standards.
Separate structure, presentation, AND behavior. Is this relevant

I don't know if interactive elements are needed. But if they are
really needed, maybe a different set of them would help accessibility
more. It is an odd set as Patrick pointed out [4]. The set should be
looked at in a holistic manner.

Douglas Crockford talked about this recently [5]. He said,

"Speaking of HTML5… A big step in the wrong direction. In my view it's
way too complicated, way too much crap in it. There's some good stuff
in it, there's some very good stuff in it, some very bad stuff in it,
and the HTML5 committee cannot tell the difference. I would like it to
go away. I would like to start over. I think there are definitely
things that we could do better in the browser platform based on what
we've learned in Ajax. That stuff's not being factored into HTML5, and
that's unfortunate."

"Because it turns out that Ajax developers are much better at this
stuff than browser makers. You look at the quality of design in any
Ajax library and it's infinitely better than what we've got coming out
of the browsers, and it's infinitely better than what we've got coming
out of HTML5. So I think this community should be the community for
deciding what the next version of the platform should be."

"Ajax is great, and the DOM is not. HTML5 just gives us a lot more
DOM. Ultimately I think we should seek to replace the DOM with an Ajax
influenced API, because Ajax gets it right. What the particulars of
that are, I don't know. It's really complicated, partly because
there's so many ideas about how Ajax should work, but we're starting
to see some convergence on some things. For example, everybody's doing
CSS queries now. That was a really good idea, everybody's up on that.
That should be standard equipment. But there's other stuff in Ajax
which is similar to that that's not in HTML5."

Another question: Is ARIA a stop gap measure or not?

In one way it seems not to be, as WAI CG was hot to add
@role="presentation" and  @aria-labelledby text alternative options
for HTML5 in the June 2009, "Consensus Resolutions on Text
alternatives in HTML 5" document [6]. It seems like they want it to be
a permanent part of HTML moving forward.

On the other hand, the ARIA road map talks about ARIA as being a bridge [7].

Thanks. I have a lot of thinking to do about everything.

Best Regards,

[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/08-html-wg-minutes.html#item05
[2] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/07-html-a11y-minutes.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/thread.html#msg189
[4] http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2010/html5-details-element-built-in-and-bolt-on-accessibility/#comment-666275
[5] http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/theater/video.php?v=crockonjs-4
[6] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5
[7] http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-roadmap/
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 17:47:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:34 UTC