- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 16:49:27 -0800
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Message-id: <7412CB16-B045-45DB-A2B1-99BB64E20993@apple.com>
<chair hat off> I'm pretty convinced by your data. Nevertheless, I think the suggested changes would make the <main> spec even stronger. Regards, Maciej On Dec 2, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > have been analysing some of the data I collected previously [1]. Of 50 pages [2] I have looked at so far (from the set of 400+ pages[3] that I have added styles to provide easy visual identification of elements with id=main|content) > 90% of elements with an id=main|content do indeed contain content that excludes header/nav/footer type content. > > you can see the results and source pages for your selves: > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlVP5_A996c5dHozOW14RkF4NEdEUFRvemxCZ2I4Z3c > > I think this is a reasonable indication (please point out if my analysis is incorrect0 that there is a common concept of what is considered the main content area of a document and that fears of misuse of an element based on this concept are over emphasised. > > Do I need to analyse more of the data set or is this enough? > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0109.html > [2] starting from 296 in the list [RDS.ca] > [3] http://www.html5accessibility.com/tests/HTML5-main-content/ > > regards > SteveF > > On 2 December 2012 19:10, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 1, 2012, at 6:39 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >> >> I think this will be a lot more effective at limiting the harm from potential improper use of <main> than a conformance error. A conformance error is a discouragement for some authors, but most content is non-conforming. Meanwhile, implementation behavior can avoid incorrectly identifying the main content even in the face of authors who do not prioritize document conformance. >> >> >> Could that also include a rule as to what to do in case there is both a <main> and a role="main" on the page? While it's a conformance error, browsers still need to decide which one to expose to AT. So, maybe in this case it would be best to expose the element with role="main" only? > > Yes, I think it would be good to have rules to disambiguate cases like this. It probably makes the most sense for explicit role=main to win, but I could also imagine having whichever appears first win. > > >> >>> I agree with this suggestion. I would also like to see "Scooby Doo" documented properly. I do wonder, however, since (if?) it is only accessibility related, whether it should be in the HTML spec, or in the mapping spec of Stever, or in a WCAG spec. >> >> I think a "find the main content" algorithm has non-accessibility uses as well, for example for data mining tools, or for "readability" style tools or browser features. >> >> Right. So it should indeed be part of the extension spec, and thus ultimately of HTML, right? > > If the <main> extension ended up integrated in the HTML spec, then I think the HTML spec would clearly be the right place for a "find the main content" algorithm. > > Regards, > Maciej > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 3 December 2012 00:49:58 UTC