W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Change proposal for ISSUE-85

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:39:27 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTilFEEeHXXKm_Q-DOQeq1TlsTQiL8nH-bMNr9jTv@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2010, at 08:46, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> One thing that would be good to get clarified is how a UA is supposed
>> to handle <a role=button>.
> [...]
>> I think a good argument could be made that if someone has gone through
>> the trouble to add 'role=button' to an element, then that is likely
>> the most accurate role. Thus I think a reasonable argument could be
>> made that we should forward this information to AT users.
> Indeed. I think <a role=button> should be reported to accessibility APIs as a button.
> This is tied to the stylability of <a>. If <a> can be styled to look like a button, there should be a mechanism for reporting it as a button via AT, too.
> Furthermore, if styling it as a button is not a machine-checkable conformance error, reporting it to AT as a button should not be a machine-checkable conformance error, either, because flagging the AT side but not the visual side as conforming would likely more often have a negative effect than have the positive effect of authors replacing <a> with <button> or <input type=button>. The particular negative effects I can foresee are either making the Web application less accessible (by omitting role altogether) or making things more complex by adding role via JS.
> On the other hand, I think http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9871 should be WONTFIXed unless addEventListener is made not to have an effect on <a>, but doing that would probably Break the Web.
> To cast the above as objections: I object to Hixie's no-change proposal to ISSUE 85 and I object to fixing bugs 9871 and 9872.

Couldn't this line of reasoning be applied to all elements, resulting
in no elements being defined as having "strong semantics"?

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 09:07:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:20 UTC