On 2 September 2014 15:36, <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > The obvious one would be that instead of working from a spec we know, > we're asking a new browser developer (such as those who announced the new > Raspberry Pi browser yesterday?) > The spec you know only defines a small subset of acc layer requirements. There are no plans or agreement to define those requirements in the the detail needed to implement accessibility layer semantics interoperably. >to replicate work based on accumulated knowledge about a bunch of different (and as far as I know not very clearly specified) APIs and how >they work. how does leaving the limited abstractions in HTML help? Likewise, it assumes that all accessibility functionality in existing > browsers will be handled by the people who connect them to Assistive > Technology and APIs. > no it does not, it assumes that where browsers do need to map features to accessibility APIs, they will have a specification that provides sufficient information for them to be able to do that. While the abstraction layer of ARIA seems like overhead, it also provides > an important safety net for development IMHO. > the practicality of transforming ARIA into a general purpose abstraction is something best discussed with the ARIA devs in PF no? -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 14:47:48 UTC