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

Re: aria vs native alternatives [was: Re: feedback requested on WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 document]

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:25:24 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80909020825i5b266005reb6953b63ee4e738@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
hi smylers,
>[This was in response to a suggestion made by Steve, who changed his
>mind based on what I wrote above.  So I was consider this not to be

the suggestion wasn't mine it came from the WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on
Text alternatives in HTML 5 which contains recommendations on alt in HTML 5

"This report provides WAI consensus recommendations for alternative text
support in HTML 5. On January 14, 2009 the WAI-CG created a Task Force on
Alternative Text, to consider the various alternative text approaches
discussed over the past few years, and to develop consensus WAI
recommendations for appropriate handling of alternative text in HTML5. These
recommendations have been reviewed by the following WAI Working Groups:
Authoring Tools Working Group (AUWG), Protocols & Formats Working Group
(PFWG), User Agent Working Group (UAWG), and Web Content (WCAG WG). "

My changing my mind does not mean that the recommendation goes away.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5


2009/9/2 Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>

> Jim Jewett writes:
> > Smylers wrote:
> >
> > > > Aria is specifically about accessibility for those with
> > > > disibilities.  A user without any disabilities using, say, Lynx or
> > > > Firefox with images turned off, would not be using any technology
> > > > that processes aira-* attributes.  As such she would not see an
> > > > alternative to the missing image, and would not know the purpose
> > > > of the link.
> [This was in response to a suggestion made by Steve, who changed his
> mind based on what I wrote above.  So I was consider this not to be
> controversial.]
> > Ian agreed with:
> >
> > > ARIA is intended as an accessibility API layer above the semantics
> > > of HTML ... last resort ... even with ARIA as an integral part of
> > > the language ... I don't think that removing ARIA markup should ever
> > > make a page non-conforming.
> >
> > Why can't lynx or firefox use the aria-* attributes?
> Aria has not been designed with non-accessibility uses in mind.  What's
> best for accessibility software may not be best for other purposes.
> If things other than accessibility software start taking notice of Aria,
> that could hamper Aria's usefulness for its intended audience.
> For example, alt attributes have often been misused with "click here",
> or other marketing messages.  If Aria is only used by accessibility
> software it's less likely things like that would happen.
> > If (as suggested) the aria spec itself forbids this, then I think that
> > is a bug in the aria spec.
> It was a choice of those creating Aria only to be concerned with
> accessiblity for those with disabilities, not accessibility in general
> ("universality").  Possibly taking universality concerns into account
> would lead to compromises, making Aria poorer at serving its currently
> defined audience.  By staying focused on a narrower aim they could
> better meet it.
> And regardless, the point is that Aria now exists, and that it has been
> designed without taking the needs of, say, Lynx users into account.  It
> would be irresponsible to delegate responsibility for something to a
> group which hasn't tried to solve it.
> Smylers

with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 15:26:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:51 UTC