Re: Actions versus destinations

> contact us can be a region of a page, or a link to the contact us page.
How they are handled is different

...especially when you try to do it all as ARIA-based semantics. However if
we used landmarks for the region (ARIA or native, as the case may be), and
then used a different metadata annotation to mark-up or enhance the link
type/destination, there would be no confusion or collision.

I am increasingly convinced that for Personalization, ARIA is but one
*Technique* that could be deployed, and not the end of the line by any
stretch of the imagination. This also calls into question however an
ongoing philosophical debate over whether or not all accessibility
information should or could be contained within the ARIA domain. I know
that previous members of the ARIA WG such as Rich Schwerdtfeger were of
that line of thinking, but a number of other well-respected and
experienced accessibility experts were not of the same mind. When you have
a hammer, everything looks like a nail - but not all accessibility issues
are "nails" and so we need (I believe) to keep an open mind about how we
solve the problem - pounding every problem with the ARIA hammer may not be
the right solution going forward...

JF

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:12 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> sure
>
> contact us can be a region of a page, or a link to the contact us page.
> How they are handled is different
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 19:06:28 +0300 *Joanmarie
> Diggs<jdiggs@igalia.com <jdiggs@igalia.com>>* wrote ----
>
> Hi Lisa.
>
> Thank you for your answer. Can you please elaborate on the
> implementation problems which resulted from these being two separate
> categories?
>
> --joanie
>
> On 04/10/2018 11:55 AM, lisa.seeman wrote:
> > Hi Joanie
> > It was all in one category but we ran into implementation problems
> > because they are handled differently depending what they are.
> > Another example of why we need some implementation as we go.
> >
> > All the best
> >
> > Lisa Seeman
> >
> > LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> > <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---- On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 17:48:23 +0300 *Joanmarie
> > Diggs<jdiggs@igalia.com>* wrote ----
> >
> > Hey all.
> >
> > Given recent discussions about how to implement Personalization
> > Semantics, I figured I'd give extension writing a try as a proof of
> > concept. As part of this, I of course had to dive into your spec.
> >
> > Question for your consideration: What are the benefits in making the
> > distinction between an action and a destination?
> >
> > I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that it doesn't buy you anything,
> > that it may lead to author confusion, and that implementation might be
> > simplified if this distinction were nixed. If you decide to keep the
> > distinction, then I think you might wish to consider prioritizing
> > clarifying actions versus destinations.
> >
> > I already filed a github issue with more details. Just pointing out the
> > issue here in case most of you aren't monitoring github issues.
> > https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/66
> >
> > Looking forward to your answers. Thanks!
> > --joanie
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion