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

I'm not suggesting it should be used instead of <main> / role=main, but in
addition to.
The advantage of <main> is you can jump directly to it; the disadvantage is
that you can only jump to one block of content.

The advantage of the Hickson proposal, is that you can jump from one block
of (interesting) content to the next (e.g.: there may be several articles
in the page, and not just one, i.e., blog). By jumping from headline to
headline you could quickly 'scan' through content in the page. <main> will
only be able to get you to the first heading. I could even, halfway through
an article decide I don't want to read further and jump to the next one.

I can see strengths in both approaches. And I can see reason for both to
exit side by side and increase the ability of keyboard users to rapidly
move through a page. Providing people with multiple means to get to
content, can only make the web more accessible.


Take care
Harry



On 27 March 2013 18:01, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.co.uk> wrote:

> Harry Loots wrote:****
>
> “Probably no more so than clicking on multiple skip links, as you
> traverse header, main navigation, secondary navigation, etc, etc...”****
>
> ** **
>
> Sorry, I meant inefficient from a UA implementation point of view. If the
> objective is to move focus directly to the start of the main content, it
> seems that hooking into a specific element is a more efficient and reliable
> way to do it than by using a process of elimination. ****
>
> ** **
>
> “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.”***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> We already have that ability (in screen readers at least). HTML5 elements
> and/or the ARIA landmark roles they map to facilitate movement between
> chunks of content using a single key command.****
>
> ** **
>
> One of the attractions of the main element is that it could facilitate a
> single command to move focus directly to the main content area of the page.
> Essentially like a skip link, but one that can be invoked from anywhere on
> the page not just when focus is on a particular anchor.****
>
> ** **
>
> This is already possible with role=”main” of course. The advantage of
> mapping the main role to an HTML5 element is that it becomes a native part
> of HTML, which increases the likelyhood it’ll be used.****
>
> ** **
>
> So whether you move from one chunk of content to another and finally
> arrive at the main content, or want to move directly to the main content
> area, hooking that interaction into a specific element would seem to be the
> most sensible way to approach it.****
>
> ** **
>
> Léonie.****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> Carpe diem.****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* harry.loots@googlemail.com [mailto:harry.loots@googlemail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Harry Loots
> *Sent:* 27 March 2013 16:30
> *To:* tink@tink.co.uk
> *Cc:* Steve Faulkner; W3C WAI ig; Ian Hickson; JF
>
> *Subject:* 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.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
> ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
>