On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Smylers wrote: > > Aria is specifically about accessibility for those with disibilities. > A user without any disabilities using, say, Lynx or Firefox with images > turned off, would not be using any technology that processes aira-* > attributes. As such she would not see an alternative to the missing > image, and would not know the purpose of the link. > > We (HTML WG) need to ensure that HTML 5 continues to cater for to users > with 'non-mainstream' set-ups even when ignoring all Aria-specifc > features. This is quite an important point -- ARIA is intended as an accessibility API layer above the semantics of HTML. As such, we really need to consider ARIA markup to be a last resort. I don't think, even with ARIA as an integral part of the language, that it makes sense for us to be making conformance predicated on including ARIA markup. That is, I don't think that removing ARIA markup should ever make a page non-conforming. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 16:39:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:54 UTC