- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:39:01 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009, Smylers wrote: > > Aria is specifically about accessibility for those with disibilities. > A user without any disabilities using, say, Lynx or Firefox with images > turned off, would not be using any technology that processes aira-* > attributes. As such she would not see an alternative to the missing > image, and would not know the purpose of the link. > > We (HTML WG) need to ensure that HTML 5 continues to cater for to users > with 'non-mainstream' set-ups even when ignoring all Aria-specifc > features. This is quite an important point -- ARIA is intended as an accessibility API layer above the semantics of HTML. As such, we really need to consider ARIA markup to be a last resort. I don't think, even with ARIA as an integral part of the language, that it makes sense for us to be making conformance predicated on including ARIA markup. That is, I don't think that removing ARIA markup should ever make a page non-conforming. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 16:39:38 UTC