- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:49:02 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. On 09-10-22 16.42: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> Why should ARIA work any different from CSS? >> >> I think, in general, it only becomes difficult for authors, for spec editors >> - for everyone - if we mix what authors should do (semantics) with how user >> agents should act (parsing etc). > > Because ARIA and CSS are different things. Why should they work > similarly? ARIA is nothing than a patch to help out users of ATs when > authors use elements in novel ways, such as using <div>s to implement > sliders. It's not meant as a general tool to be used by the average > author - with luck, a normal author never has to get anywhere *near* > ARIA, because they're using elements for what they're intended for. > > As well, it's really just more trouble than it's worth to restrict CSS > to only apply 'conforming' styling - the operations are too low-level > to sanely constrain. ARIA, on the other hand, is a high-level tool > that *can* be sanely restricted. To make <h1 role="button"> non-conforming *is* to restrict how it can be used and *is* to treat ARIA different from CSS. The only likeness between CSS and ARIA that I suggested, is that ARIA should over-rule the default semantics, the same way that CSS should overrule default styling. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 14:49:38 UTC