RE: Revert request for r6610, and moving forward on ISSUE-129

Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
> 
> New information was provided in this case; it is listed in comment 3 of
> the bug in question (specifically the second paragraph). This is as was
> requested by the chairs.

"New Information" is with regard to Issue 129 being re-opened. It is not
your attempt to open a bug, provide yourself with your own rationale and
then doing an end run around the Working Group Decision. Your misinformed
assertions of what ARIA is intended for, coupled with vague and dire
warnings of "harm to accessibility" are not New Information.

What ARIA is intended for:

   "WAI-ARIA, the Accessible Rich Internet Applications Suite, defines a
way to make *Web content* and Web applications more accessible to people
with disabilities."
- http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria 

ARIA categorizes roles that define user interface widgets (sliders, tree
controls, etc.) and those that define page structure (sections,
navigation, etc.). These roles include:

* Abstract Roles
* Widget Roles
* Document Structure Roles
* Landmark Roles
- http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#roles_categorization 

The last 2 categories, Document Structure Roles and Landmark Roles were
created *EXPRESSLY* for authors who are trying to express semantics (to
the platform Accessibility APIs BTW, and not AT directly). Many of those
roles do not have direct mappings to even the new landmark elements of
HTML5 (role="main" for example).

ARIA is for more than just custom widgets, despite some people's mistaken
belief.


I urge the Chairs to follow through with the revert request, and involve
W3C staff if the editor is unwilling to do so.

JF

Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 00:25:10 UTC