- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 02:14:39 +0000
- To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: Ian Yang <ian@invigoreight.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+VkthkNuEjjcjQWmB185WbvBX7WRA0umKpDyd=Ani8m8yw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Chaals, thanks for the detailed reply to Ian, the apparent terseness of my own reply was based on the knowledge of Ian's (Yang) being involved in much of the discussion[1] that occurred on the WHATWG list on the subject, and in fact being the person who triggered my renewed interest in the development of the feature. >My conclusions are that differences in the WHAT-WG version are silly, but the element as specified in the HTML specification and as commonly >implemented is actually very useful. It should be noted that the differences (with the W3C definition) in how main has been defined in the whatwg spec have not been ignored. I have sought to understand what the reasoning for those differences is [2] and also asked Ian (Hixie) directly on IRC, but have not as yet received any response. [1] http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=public-whatwg-archive&index-type=t&keywords=maincontent&search=Search [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2013Feb/0172.html with regards -- SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html> On 24 March 2013 00:33, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>wrote: > On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:21:17 +0100, Steve Faulkner < > faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Ian, >> >> Ian Hixie, he mentioned that the existence of the ARIA landmark role >>> "main" is a mistake >>> >> > I've seen this assertion from him, and discussions about why. I am > unconvinced by the arguments I have seen. I also haven't seen anything that > reasonably contradicts the data Steve produced to justify the element. My > discussions with web developers, from small-shop devs to things like Yandex > with millions of users across dozens or hundreds of services suggest that > the element makes sense. > > That's very thought-provoking >>> >> > Well, it might be. The original proposal was thought-provoking enough to > also provoke me into reading other people's thoughts and research and even > doing a small amount of my own. My conclusions are that differences in the > WHAT-WG version are silly, but the element as specified in the HTML > specification and as commonly implemented is actually very useful. > > The fact that Ian disagrees with something isn't enough to be > though-provoking on its own. He is clever, and often right. But not about > everything. Some of his insights into accessibility are very helpful, and > some of them just suggest that he knows more about other aspects of HTML. > > > both role=main and now <main> are part of the web platform and >> interoperably implemented across browsers and assistive technology >> > > Yes, and this happened very quickly. That doesn't necessarily mean they > are a good idea, because sometimes the wisdom of the crowd isn't quite as > clever as we hope, but it suggests that a large proportion of the relevant > decision makers, who on balance are usually quite smart and quite > thoughtful about what they add to the web, are convinced that the element > makes sense. > > A major reason for the element is to replace the "skip to main content" > links that are all over the web, for accessibility purposes. While the use > of those links is a terrible bit of architecture (they only work if you > start from the top of the page and navigate with the keyboard, etc etc) > they are deemed useful enough to include on all kinds of websites whose > designs have been through multiple rounds of usability testing to ensure > they make sense in practice. > > There have been discussions in all kinds of places. Since Steve was the > big proponent, he can probably provide pointers by digging through his > email archive, but I suggest you look at the mail archives of the W3C's > HTML Working Group[1], the W3C's HTML Accessibility Task Force[2] in > particular. You can also look at things like IRC logs, blog posts, and so > on. A Yandex search [3] shows a handful of interesting perspectives in > blogs and articles, too. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-html/<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/> > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-html-a11y/<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/> > [3] http://yandex.com/yandsearch?**text=html5+main+element&clid=** > 1823140&lr=213<http://yandex.com/yandsearch?text=html5+main+element&clid=1823140&lr=213> > > Note that this is just my personal opinion, and I am not always right :) > > cheers > > Chaals > > -- > Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex > chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com >
Received on Sunday, 24 March 2013 02:15:48 UTC