- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 17:38:23 +0100
- To: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On 04/04/2016 16:28, David MacDonald wrote: > Naturally we want people to use the new technologies where there was no > previous good solution. For instance, on new web sites > - No page that has visually distinct headers, footers, Nav bars, main > content, and asides should be without an ACCESSIBLE NAME (and/or > ACCESSIBLE DESCRIPTION) for those sections. *SHOULD* in the spec sense of the word? Also, not sure there's absolute consensus on this point - it will depend on exactly what those areas contain, how complex the overall structure of the page is, etc. > - No link text should have an ambiguous ACCESSIBLE NAME (or ACCESSIBLE > DESCRIPTION), so the days of click here, read more, showing up in links > lists should be a thing of the past. Isn't this covered already by 2.4.9 Link Purpose (Link Only) ? > HTML5 and WAI ARIA have solved these problems with new HTML elements, > roles, aria-label, aria-labelledby etc... > > So how can we ensure that new sites do take advantages of these new ways > to solve old problems that previously were just hacked, or mostly not > done at all? I don't think there's any onus on WCAG to *ensure* that any specific technology is used over another. What matters is the end result: is the success criterion satisfied, e.g. can the user orient themselves on the page, can they distinguish different links, etc. Whether the implementation is using "hacked" solutions (that still work, mind) or new shiny technology is, for the most part, irrelevant, no? P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Monday, 4 April 2016 16:38:48 UTC