- From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:06:48 -0400
- To: wloughborough@gmail.com, HTML WG Public List <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Jim Jewett<jimjjewett@gmail.com> wrote: > My admittedly biased perspective is that the programmers have taken > some first steps, but the "meeting halfway" part was a missed > connection. After a bomb like this, I really am obligated to be a bit more specific, in case someone is suddenly motivated. ARIA/HTML integration: --------------------------- HSivonen's draft aria-html integration is at http://hsivonen.iki.fi/aria-html5-bis/ It isn't the easiest to understand without code, but it is currently in production use in his validator, and I believe it got the ball rolling. Ian Hixie's current draft does include an attempt to integrate ARIA and html. I believe it could use much improvement (and I have submitted a bug report already), but it is concrete enough that it can be reviewed, and bugs can be fixed. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#annotations-for-assistive-technology-products I'm also aware of Steven Faulkner's draft http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/ARIA/html5-elements1.html but am leery of the status. The last I saw was http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Aug/1103.html where he basically said not to look at it. Since the even the contents looked plausible to me, that had the effect of making me think I should bow out of the discussion and wait for things to be simplified. Table Summary auto-generation: -------------------------------------- [Earlier brainstorming had been led by Simon Pieters, which gave cause for optimism that at least Opera would be willing to implement, if there were agreement.] Request for feedback on summary autogeneration: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0330.html Stephen Stewart said +1 to the idea, but he spoke as an author, rather than an accessibility expert, and didn't evaluate the specific proposals. Joshue O'Connor said that auto-generated isn't as good as human-generated, but didn't say where the failures were, or whether the auto-generated were worth doing when the human did neglect his or her duty. Janina Sajka said that good headers aren't enough, because examining them is a pain. But that sounds like a User Interface problem -- exactly what autogenerated summaries would solve. I didn't see any response to the specific suggested summaries. Gez Lemon seemed to agree with Janina, but didn't respond about the specific examples, so I'm still not sure what is sufficient to be useful. He also posted a "good example" that was autogenerated by the authoring tool, but took advantage of knowledge that wouldn't normally be available except on an intranet. So it couldn't be copied by browsers, and it wasn't clear whether that information was needed to provide something that was worthwhile (as opposed to out-and-out great). -jJ
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 18:07:49 UTC