- From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 05:03:14 -0800
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <55687cf80911090503g7fe85998qfd0bd6914af6a574@mail.gmail.com>
hi sam, >It is my experience that conversations are more productive when anchored by specifics. Given that there are implementations, instead of simply saying "Y >should be allowed", statements like "tool X does Y for reason Z; Y is currently considered non-conformant; which should change, X or the draft?" would likely >end up with a better (and quicker) outcome. which is what i did at the start of this thread. and consequently moved it to a bug and then escalated it to the html wg tracker. regards stevef 2009/11/9 Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> > Steven Faulkner wrote: > >> hi Tab, >> >I'm reasonably certain that ARIA is *not* in wide use at the moment >> Its implemented to varying degrees in all of the major javscript UI >> libraries, as well as major CMS's such as wordpress and drupal, its in use >> by both Google and yahoo for many of their web applications and widgets. It >> is in use in over 200 IBM web based applications. So it depends on your >> definition of wide use. >> I personally would prefer that developers stayed within the boundaries of >> correct usage (as defined within a spec) for HTML elements and attributes, >> but they don't. When they extend the semantics of HTML to create UI widgets, >> without the addition of ARIA it is most likely they will not be >> understandable to AT users. >> Making ARIA non conformant does not encourage developers to do the right >> thing, it encourages them not to use ARIA. It does not make sense to >> penalise developers for use of ARIA when it is not the use of ARIA that >> causes an issue. >> > > It is my experience that conversations are more productive when anchored by > specifics. Given that there are implementations, instead of simply saying > "Y should be allowed", statements like "tool X does Y for reason Z; Y is > currently considered non-conformant; which should change, X or the draft?" > would likely end up with a better (and quicker) outcome. > > regards >> Stevef >> > > - Sam Ruby > > 2009/11/7 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com <mailto: >> jackalmage@gmail.com>> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:36 AM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu >> <mailto:jfoliot@stanford.edu>> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> That doesn't work here. We know what we want to encourage (using the >> correct elements whenever possible, and only falling back to ARIA when >> the semantics aren't quite right or just don't exist). I'm reasonably >> certain that ARIA is *not* in wide use at the moment, so any mistakes >> made are likely minimal. Thus, we should restrict away. It's *much* >> easier to remove a restriction that turns out to be widely violated >> than it is to impose one after the fact. >> >> > 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? 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. >> >> Indeed, and it's great that creative uses like Bespin happen. That >> pushes the technology forward, and also helps highlight the problems >> (in Bespin's case, the accessibility story for <canvas>). If/when >> creative and unexpected things happen with ARIA that would require a >> violation of the existing reasonable restraints, that will show they >> are unreasonable and should be changed. At that point they can and >> *will* be changed, assuming the people of the future are at least >> halfway sane. It's not like an invalid use of ARIA causes technical >> problems preventing a page from working, after all. There is >> flexibility built in to allow experimentation; we don't need to >> actively push such experimentation for it to happen. >> >> ~TJ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> with regards >> >> Steve Faulkner >> Technical Director - TPG Europe >> Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium >> >> www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | www.wat-c.org < >> http://www.wat-c.org> >> >> Web Accessibility Toolbar - >> http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html >> > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 13:03:57 UTC