- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 07:48:32 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Rafael Weinstein <rafaelw@google.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@chromium.org> wrote: >> ... http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Custom_Tags_Analysis#Accessibility ... >> >> If you look at the two alternatives, one (the "is" attribute) asks the >> authors to make the right choice. The other asks the component >> developers to make the right choice. In the former case, the pool of >> people who need to do the right thing is several orders of magnitude >> larger than the latter. From there, it takes pure statistics to figure >> out which alternative is likely to get better results. > > Why would components be authored by a significantly smaller set of people? For the same reason that jQuery plugins are authored by a significantly smaller set of people than "jQuery users". *Theoretically*, every jQuery user can write their own plugins - it's really easy, and very useful. In practice, almost everyone uses ones written by someone else. Part of the *point* of Components is to reach exactly this model, and have a safe (from an author-usability perspective) way to include someone else's HTML in your own, so we're not all constantly reinventing the same markup patterns. > And it's not exactly about "making the right choice". Component > authors will have to do a significant amount work. Again, the example of jQuery is instructive. A lot of plugins do *not* create accessible markup. However, the most popular ones *do*, and because of this, you end up with much more accessible markup overall than if every user was inventing things themselves. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 05:49:23 UTC