- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:51:07 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8447
Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jackalmage@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> 2009-12-07 13:51:06 ---
> If the aside is equivalent to a printed sidebar, there should be no nav
> elements, and shouldn't be referenced as a web page sidebar. This confuses the
> semantics of the element, which decreases its value.
It's intended to be used for anything that's "considered separate from the main
content of the page". That can often include navs, and certainly includes the
majority of what you'd find in a web page sidebar. Anything that, if removed,
wouldn't change the meaning of the content is a candidate for wrapping in an
aside.
In other words, it's not directly equivalent to a printed sidebar, but is
pretty well analogous. You just don't often see navigation in sidebars in
print; you do on the web.
> In addition, no navigation should be embedded in an aside element--not if it is
> to be used for pull quotes or typographical sidebars. Placing navigation in the
> aside could lead to it being skipped by some user agents, who treat the
> element's semantics seriously.
That's precisely what we want. I have to employ weird tricks to make it easy
to skip over the navigation and sidebar content for keyboard and screen-reader
users. If jumping past these areas was a native ability, it would be much
better for my users. Note that "jumping past" is not the same as "ignoring
completely forever"; you should always be able to read what's in an aside, it's
just not directly relevant to the content in front of you.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 13:51:08 UTC