- From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:32:14 -0700
- To: jonas@sicking.cc
- Cc: raman@google.com, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, mjs@apple.com, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
Good question. Obviously, to an author willing to do the right thing, clearly tell him use the "button". But I thought the whole pushback against xhtml and the clean Web was that people wouldn't fix things, and that we had to bend over backwards to make badly written content work. Why is the yardstick that gets applied to accessibility somehow different? Makes me wonder .... perhaps after a few more years of the "we the great programmers can compile anything and everything into a presentable DOM", we'll go back to trying to tell people how they should have done things right in the first place. Having been around the block a few times on the Web, I shall watch that next evolution with interest. Jonas Sicking writes: > 2009/10/21 T.V Raman <raman@google.com>: > > Sad but true, I'd answer yes to your question. ARIA $(ÿ > > to patch up bad HTML $(ÿ > > that is its role (no pun intended) > > But is it really better that we ask authors "please put an ARIA > attribute on the <h1> that you effectively turned into a button" than > that we ask them "please use a <button> instead of a <h1>"? > > / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 23:32:57 UTC