Re: Change proposal for ISSUE-85

On 06/06/2010 10:40 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:
> On 06/05/2010 09:34 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> Don't allow people to use ARIA to write inaccessible documents.
>
> ARIA does not allow people to write inaccessible documents. Vague
> statements  and lack of machine checkable conformance criteria in the
> HTML5 specification in relation to the overloading and overriding of
> elements default semantics and behaviours is the cause. ARIA merely
> provides the author with the opportunity to communicate her authoring
> intentions unambiguously via an accessibility API.
>
>   >ARIA is useful for authors who need to make new widgets that HTML doesn't
>> yet support. Buttons are supported by HTML, and therefore there is no
>> reason for an author to make a link act like a button to ATs.
>
> ARIA is also useful when authors for whatever reason decide to modify
> or extend the behaviour of a supported HTML element, which they often
> do.`q

Examples?

>> Making a link act like a button to ATs while leaving it as a link for
>> non-AT users will lead to non-AT users having a confusing experience,
>> since the author will think the link is going to appear as a button to
>> users and may refer to it as such.
>
> If it is acts like a link then it should be presented as a link to all
> users, if it acts like a button the it should be presented to all
> users as a button. making a link look and act like a button for some
> users, but not conveying this to other users will result in a
> confusing experience.

Do you both agree with the following statement?

Making a link act like a button to non-ATs while leaving it as a link 
for AT users will lead to AT users having a confusing experience, since 
the author will think the link is going to appear as a button to users 
and may refer to it as such.

> regards
> Stevef

- Sam Ruby

Received on Sunday, 6 June 2010 16:00:18 UTC