- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:08:35 +0100
- To: "Ben Schwarz" <ben.schwarz@gmail.com>
- Cc: "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:35:31 +0100, Ben Schwarz <ben.schwarz@gmail.com> wrote: > I generally markup pages using ARIA roles: > > <header role=banner> > <article role=main> > <footer role=contentinfo> There is an implicit mapping already. > and variations thereafter— > > If there were to be a <main> attribute (with an implicit ARIA role to > match), where would it end? It ends at <main> since that's the last landmark lacking an element. > <contentinfo> <banner> ? The are called <footer> and <header>. > What is to be gained by adding an element, rather than using ARIA roles? The gain is better ergonomics and more likelihood of getting accessible pages by people using the elements without doing extra work to cater for AT. > Isn't that what ARIA is designed for? The role and state part of ARIA was designed to be a stop-gap solution to make JS-based Web applications accessible in a way that would work in legacy IE with modern AT. The landmark part of ARIA was designed to do the same thing as the new elements in HTML. IIRC, landmarks were kept instead of embracing the new elements because the elements were specified in a document that was not expected to be finished in two decades whereas ARIA was expected to be finished in a much shorter time frame. That we would end up having both was not seen as a showstopper for either group. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 15:09:22 UTC