Re: Questions arising from ARIA/HTML5 integration

It looks to me like this conversation thread is going in circles.

On Sep 4, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Steven Faulkner wrote:
> (picking this example more or less at random; the same applies to the
> other issues too:)
>>>> <caption>
>>>> is mapped to platform API as the accessible name of a table
>>> How do I denote this in the spec?
>> why do you want to denote it?
> Becuase I thought that was what needed doing with respect to  
> integrating
> ARIA. If I am mistaken I am happy to remove the table of mappings. I  
> have
> no personal opinion on the matter, I'm just trying to do whatever is  
> the
> right thing by ARIA.

I think it's ok to have default accessibility semantics for some  
elements, even strong semantics that can't be overriden, even if that  
behavior does not map to an existing ARIA role. The sensible thing to  
do is to have the table, but for elements that don't map directly to  
an ARIA role, or attributes that don't exactly map onto an ARIA state  
or property, just indicate that in some clear way. I think this is in  
the spirit of the communication from PFWG, and it is certainly the way  
Henri and I read it. I don't think anyone else but you read it to say  
that every element must mapped to the role.

Let's not overthink this.


Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 23:53:50 UTC