- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 01:13:26 -0800
- To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > 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. Do you have any reason to believe that we'll be more successful in asking authors to add a role attribute to the <a> than in asking them to change to use a more appropriate element? / Jonas
Received on Saturday, 7 November 2009 09:14:29 UTC