- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 06:52:15 +0000
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, david.bolter@gmail.com, jbrewer@w3.org, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, mike@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > * It follows an established pattern within ARIA. Why is > describedAT so 'special' that it needs a unique naming style? Why is "role" so special? > A single attribute without the prefix only sounds confusing. Maybe. I was more thinking maybe we should just stop naming things using the "aria-" prefix. Perhaps the weirdness of the "aria-" prefix is a good argument for just defining new features in host languages not expanding ARIA, or for changing ARIA to recommend host languages implement ARIA properties by providing implicit mappings from native names rather than requiring them to include the ARIA names. > * It learns from the antipattern set by @longdesc and @summary: > Unique names for seldom used/seen attributes is no good. Better > with an often seen prefix for a range of related attributes. What gave some coherency to this ragbag collection was mainstream UAs were using them only for accessibility API mappings. If we take the view that user agents should be building UI on top of ARIA (like this spec for @aria-describedat does), I don't think the ARIA attributes are especially "related" to each other. They are just abrogating a load of common document and application semantics into a single vocabulary. Hey, where have I heard that before … oh yeah, that's what HTML is supposed to do! Why don't we just add new common document and application semantics to HTML and recommend other markup languages reuse HTML features rather than reinventing the wheel? > @aria-DESCRIBEDat, is not completely void of benefits: > > * It indicates relationship to aria-DESCRIBEDby What relationship? The one where authors get utterly confused between the two? ;) > * The 'AT' part has hyperlink connotations - @. Twitter? Email? If "hyperlink connotations" are good, then surely "url" or "href" have stronger connotations. > * Less technical than 'fooURL' How is that better? If it's better, how about "descriptionlink"? > and leads the thought towards the content that one points to I think that's an implicit aspect of any name that suggests a hyperlink… > and thus delegitimizes misuse. No, it encourages misuse since it does not make the data type clear. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 06:53:05 UTC