- From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:14:40 -0600
- To: "John Foliot" <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: "'HTMLWG WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OF6D94606E.AC26DE2E-ON86257666.00598F65-86257666.006F34D9@us.ibm.com>
Rich Schwerdtfeger Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist public-html-request@w3.org wrote on 10/21/2009 06:23:20 PM: > "John Foliot" <jfoliot@stanford.edu> > Sent by: public-html-request@w3.org > > 10/21/2009 06:23 PM > > To > > "'HTMLWG WG'" <public-html@w3.org> > > cc > > "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org> > > Subject > > RE: ARIA roles added to the a element should be conforming in HTML5. > > Thoughts on this thread: > > Thomas Broyer wrote: > > > > The fact that the developer can technically turn an <a> into a button > > isn't a justification for making it conforming. If it's not a link but > > a button, you should use <button> or <span role=button>. > > > > The fact that we are seeing this in the wild, and that non-conformant pages > still render in all browsers (and will continue to do so) is justification > enough that ARIA added here should not 'add' to the non-conformance. ARIA > is an attempt to provide real solutions to real problems, and if a developer > can turn an <a> into a button and have it render on screen, that is a real > problem. > > > > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > > > ... a funky custom role > > on <h1>. But it does seem fairly common to use an <a> element with > > styling and a click event listener or javascript: URL as a button, > > instead of as a link. Is it worthwhile for the spec to tell people > > doing such things that they are wrong? > > 1) ARIA is no more 'funky' than microdata - and in fact is much more mature. > Bad choice of description. > > 2) Having the spec introduce or take advantage of a teachable moment is good > > 3) Why *can't* any element take an ARIA role if it is appropriate? Given > the desire to have as much accessibility baked in as possible, this seems > like a trivial thing to add to the spec - any element can take an ARIA role > if/when required. Why limit it to a subset of the entire tool-box? > > > > Henri Sivonen wrote: > > > > Styling h1 to be a button probably isn't a cowpath. > > > > Right, but it *is* a potential out-lyer, and more importantly, what *harm* > is inflicted by allowing the <h_> element to take an ARIA role? > All we are doing is allowing the author to convey their intent. Do I wish authors would use html elements for their purpose? Of course. That is not the world we live in. Whether we believe something is a cowpath is really irrelevant. Industry thought HTML was only for documents in 1998 too. > > > Ian Hickson wrote: > > > > Conformance is about what developers _should_ do, however. > > > > There is however no real penalty for non-conformance, so that really doesn't > mean a whole bunch in the grand scheme of things. If however you truly > believe that conformance is "...what developers _should_ do...", then they > _should_ add ARIA role information to any element that they have > 'repurposed' via scripting and CSS, to, as Steven states "Make sense out of > non-sense" for users of AT. And to do this 'legally' the spec must say they > can... > > JF > > > > >
Received on Friday, 6 November 2009 20:15:52 UTC