W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2009

Re: ARIA roles added to the a element should be conforming in HTML5.

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 21:58:57 -0800
Message-ID: <63df84f0911072158g464cbb4fjaae36d31ac936283@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-request@w3.org, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:36 AM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>>>> 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?
>> Hi Jonas,
>> We really have no reason to believe any given author will do anything
>> right *or* wrong; experience tells us to expect both. The real question
>> is, why impose limits when we don't really need to? Think inclusive, not
>> restrictive.
> So the theory is that if we give people more tools they are bound to
> use one of them?
> This to me feel similar to the philosophy of Perl: "There's more than
> one way to do it". I personally favor the approach that python is
> taking, which is "keep it clean and simple".
> However, comparisons with programming languages don't necessarily
> carry over to accessibility features. It's quite possible that for
> accessibility features having more ways to do the same thing is
> advantageous.
>> We can see JS libraries do that (add a role attribute to the <a>) for the
>> author if/when required (as one use-case: ARIA is/was designed primarily
>> for "DHTML / AJAX").  Moreover, what real harm is caused by allowing to do
>> so?
> The harm that I see is loosing the ability to have a clear message for
> what the right way to do things is.
>> We can't envision all uses that authors might dream up moving
>> forward: look at Bespin and Canvas - nobody really envisioned Bespin like
>> use when Canvas was spec'd, yet here we are today.
> I'll note that what Bespin did is not valid HTML 5. The spec says:
> "Authors should not use the canvas  element in a document when a more
> suitable element is available"
> There is definitely more appropriate elements in this case, thus
> Bespin is not valid HTML 5.

Hmm.. actually given that the spec says "should not" rather than "must
not" I guess it's still conforming according to the spec.

/ Jonas
Received on Sunday, 8 November 2009 05:59:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:02 UTC