Re: Rethinking the necessities of ARIA landmark role "main" and HTML5 <main> element

Hi Léonie

But isn’t that a very inefficient way to get there?

Probably no more so than clicking on multiple skip links, as you traverse
header, main navigation, secondary navigation, etc, etc...

The advantage of having such a technique, would be that a user can jump
from one block of (non-interesting) content to a next block of content with
a single shortcut key sequence. So that, even where developers have
forgotten to mark up blocks of content, and have forgotten to provide skip
links, users can still skip reasonably quickly to main content blocks.

Take care

Harry




On 27 March 2013 17:01, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.co.uk> wrote:

> Harry Loots wrote:****
>
> “Here's how the Hixon proposal may work:
>
>
> tab -> (jump to) <header> ignore, skip -> (jump to) <nav> ignore, skip ->
> (jump to) <aside> ignore, skip -> (jump to) <div id="gallery"> stop, allow
> user to read/view;
> next tab -> <div id="products"> stop, allow user to read/view;
> next tab -> <aside> ignore, skip -> <div id="contactUs"> stop, allow user
> to read/view;
> next tab -> <footer> ignore, skip -> return to top....”****
>
> ** **
>
> But isn’t that a very inefficient way to get there?****
>
> ** **
>
> Léonie.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> Carpe diem.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* harry.loots@googlemail.com [mailto:harry.loots@googlemail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Harry Loots
> *Sent:* 27 March 2013 14:59
> *To:* Steve Faulkner
> *Cc:* W3C WAI ig; Ian Hickson; JF
> *Subject:* Re: Rethinking the necessities of ARIA landmark role "main"
> and HTML5 <main> element****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi again Steve****
>
> ** **
>
> re:****
>
> ... one principle is a thought experiment, the other is implemented and
> used already, ****
>
> Which of the proposals are already implemented? I thought that "<main>"
> was a proposal for 5.1?****
>
>
> I urge anyone who thinks Ian's idea is worthwhile to define how it would
> work in practice and get implementers interested in making it real.****
>
> ** **
>
> Here's how the Hixon proposal may work:
>
> tab -> (jump to) <header> ignore, skip -> (jump to) <nav> ignore, skip ->
> (jump to) <aside> ignore, skip -> (jump to) <div id="gallery"> stop, allow
> user to read/view;
> next tab -> <div id="products"> stop, allow user to read/view;
> next tab -> <aside> ignore, skip -> <div id="contactUs"> stop, allow user
> to read/view;
> next tab -> <footer> ignore, skip -> return to top....****
>
> Regards****
>
> Harry****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 27 March 2013 12:07, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:**
> **
>
> Hi Harry, ****
>
> ** **
>
> and Ian's proposal will form a perfect fail-safe when authors do not use
> role=main or <main>.****
>
> ** **
>
> problem is its not a perfect fail safe I have actually looked into a
> heuristic approach and like most heuristics it fails at times. From HTML
> data I collected and reviewed [1] I found that exclusion was not a reliable
> indicator. ****
>
> ** **
>
> There is no reason why the two principles cannot co-exist****
>
>
> of course, bit one principle is a thought experiment, the other is
> implemented and used already, I urge anyone who thinks Ian's idea is
> worthwhile to define how it would work in practice and get implementers
> interested in making it real.****
>
>
> [1] http://webdevdata.org/****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> with regards
>
> --
> SteveF
> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>****
>
> ** **
>
> On 27 March 2013 10:50, Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org> wrote:****
>
> Steve****
>
> you're right arguing is senseless...****
>
> However, it's worth considering the principle Ian promotes:****
>
> That the UA ignores (the way I understand what he proposes)
> <header><nav><footer><aside><etc> and lands on <main>, e.g., (my
> understanding/interpretation) by using a built-in short-cut key exposed to
> all users.****
>
> There is no reason why the two principles cannot co-exist, and Ian's
> proposal will form a perfect fail-safe when authors do not use role=main or
> <main>.****
>
> Kind regards****
>
> Harry****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> On 27 March 2013 11:14, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:**
> **
>
> Hi all, this discussion appears to be going nowhere
>
> We have landmark semantics that are interoperably supported across
> browsers and AT, we have evidence to suggest that users find them useful.
> We have mapping of  landmarks built in to HTML structural elements (in
> various stages of implementation)
> We have evidence to suggest that authors understand how to implement
> landmarks.
>
>
> Then we have a thought experiment from hixie that says hey you don't need
> those landmarks especially role=main. This idea has been brought up over
> and over by Hixie (note it was rejected on his home turf at the WHATWG) and
> never gained any traction, browser implementers rejected it in favour of
> adding the <main> element ( a number of whom have already implemented it).
>
> So we now have a method that works (is supported out of the box by AT) and
> work is also happening to build upon it to provide a simple browser built
> in skip to content feature that any user can make use of, so in time the
> necessity of providing a skip link will diminish.
>
> It would therefore seem more productive to be debating other topics.****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> with regards
>
> --
> SteveF
> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>****
>
> ** **
>
> On 27 March 2013 08:50, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.co.uk> wrote:****
>
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> "In the interface I am proposing, there is no repeated questioning. The
> user indicates to the software that the user wishes to skip uninteresting
> content and jump to interesting content, in a single action (exactly the
> same kind of action as is used to jump to a header, or to jump to a
> specific landmark role). Then, the user agent skips all uninteresting
> content and jumps straight to the content the user wants (the same content
> as would be marked with <main> or role=main)."****
>
> >From the user's point of view I think this is right. The phrases
> "interesting" and "uninteresting" are too subjective to be helpful, but
> essentially a single command that moves focus to the start of the main
> content area of the page is the goal.
>
> >From an implementation point of view I think this is inefficient. It's
> more reliable and less process intensive to move from A to Z, than it is to
> move from A, to B, to C, to D and so on until all that remains by a process
> of elimination is Z.
>
> So if the goal is to have a single mechanism for moving directly to a
> given point on the page, what's the hook the UA uses to make that possible?
>
>
> Léonie.
> --
> Carpe diem.****
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hickson [mailto:ian@hixie.ch]
> Sent: 27 March 2013 02:11
> To: JF
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Rethinking the necessities of ARIA landmark role "main" and
> HTML5 <main> element****
>
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013, JF wrote:
> >
> > A man arrives at the San Jose airport in Silicon Valley.
> >
> > "I want to go to the campus" he tells the cab driver.
> >
> > "The Stanford campus?", asks the cabbie.
> >
> > [...]
>
> Could you explain to me how this analogy corresponds to the discussion? In
> the interface I am proposing, there is no repeated questioning. The user
> indicates to the software that the user wishes to skip uninteresting
> content and jump to interesting content, in a single action (exactly the
> same kind of action as is used to jump to a header, or to jump to a
> specific landmark role). Then, the user agent skips all uninteresting
> content and jumps straight to the content the user wants (the same content
> as would be marked with <main> or role=main).
>
> The user experience is _exactly_ the same as the experience possible with
> explicit landmark roles. The only difference is how it is marked up.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>