- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 22:05:49 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
Ian Hickson, Sun, 6 Jun 2010 19:27:24 +0000 (UTC): > On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, Sam Ruby wrote: […] > What's important to remember is that there are more than two kinds of user > agents; there are at least three: > > 1. User agents with scripting, CSS, etc, […] > 2. User agents with ATs […] > 3. User agents without CSS,[…] scripting […] and […] without ATs […] > The only way to keep things consistent amongst all three is to use HTML > elements appropriately, and not override their semantics with ARIA. […] > Updated change proposal with the above: […] > Don't allow people to use ARIA to write inaccessible documents. I don't understand why we you want us to perceive 'accessible' and 'consistent [across user agents]' as synonyms. [...[ > The only way to keep things consistent amongst all three is to use HTML > elements appropriately, and not override their semantics with ARIA. > > ARIA is great when you're creating new widgets that aren't in HTML yet: it > allows you to create pages that work in #1 and #2, covering the vast > majority of users, at the cost of #3, who wouldn't be able to experience > the new widget at all anyway. However, when HTML provides the widget you > need, as in the case of a button or a link, and #3 already supports that > widget and therefore there is no need to fake it. HTML5 does not forbid us from saying <div role="button"> or <div role="link">. To follow your line to the end, it really should be forbidden ... One reason to allow <a> elements to have different ARIA semantics in #3 compared to what they may have in #1 and #2 is that it allow us to use approximation in the choice of widget element. An <a> element is closer to the semantics of a button than a <div> is. Thus it allows us to create something that has a useful fallback in #3. […] -- leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 6 June 2010 20:06:57 UTC