I think this could be a good thing. We might end up with less confusion around the idea of 'mapping elements to aria roles', which is not something browsers need to do, but is useful for validation tools. I think the key is to make sure we have a good 'element to desktop API' and good 'aria to desktop API' mapping table(s) so that we can be interoperable on the desktops. If having this linked to from the html5 spec makes it more powerful/legitimate we should argue for that. Does this make sense? Aside: wouldn't it be great if the desktop APIs where all the same? /me ducks Cheers, David On 19/01/11 5:26 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote: > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11798 > > "It has been brought to my attention by some browser vendors that > browsersdon't actually implement accessibility API annotations exactly > the way theARIA spec says to; instead, they have default mappings from > HTML directly tothe accessibility APIs that they use unless an > explicit role="" has beengiven. So it might make sense to change this > section so that it is nothing butconformance criteria for authors, > removing the UA conformance criteriarelating to ARIA and platform > AAPIs from the HTML spec altogether." > > -- > with regards > > Steve Faulkner > Technical Director - TPG > > www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | > www.HTML5accessibility.com <http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> | > www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner <http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner> > HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - > dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ <http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/> > Web Accessibility Toolbar - > www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html > <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 17:25:35 UTC