Re: ARIA roles added to the a element should be conforming in HTML5.

But it is often bad HTML in so far as it is not semantically correct, e.g.
Making a custom button from a bunch of divs when you could use a more
semantically appropriate element such as <button>. That isn't an intended
use of HTML?

I wish there was no need for ARIA. I wish in a future version of HTML there
would be a full range of fully css style-able controls, and when someone
thinks of a new piece of UI, if it can't be achieved semantically it is
submitted to the HTML WG and they mandate it for a future release rather
than developers hacking it up out of divs and script.

I rather idealistically feel that accessibility should be built in, not
tacked on afterward with ARIA or anything else, but we all know this utopian
world will never exist.

Phil.


On 22/10/2009 13:58, "Jon Gunderson" <jongund@illinois.edu> wrote:

> I disagree that ARIA is designed to patch up bad HTML, ARIA is designed to
> provide Accessibility API mappings for widgets created using HTML, javascript
> and CSS markup.  There are no HTML equivalent elements that can be used to
> represent the widgets people are creating for the web.  Even the new user
> interface controls in HTML 5 will not cover all of the types of widgets that
> developers are dreaming up and putting on the web.  There are already hundreds
> of web toolkits being developed to create custom controls and widgets for the
> web and ARIA is the only technology available to make them more accessible.
> 
> Jon
>    
> 
> ---- Original message ----
>> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:01:29 -0700
>> From: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>
>> Subject: Re: ARIA roles added to the a element should be conforming in HTML5.
>> To: jonas@sicking.cc
>> Cc: faulkner.steve@gmail.com, mjs@apple.com, public-html@w3.org,
>> wai-xtech@w3.org
>> 
>> 
>> Sad but true, I'd answer yes to your question. ARIA  was designed
>> to patch up bad HTML  usage --- that is  where it coems from, and
>> that is its role (no pun intended)
>> 
>> Jonas Sicking writes:
>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Steven Faulkner
>>> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> hi maciej,
>>>>> I think <button> is pretty consistently fully stylable cross-browser
>>>>> (unlike, say, <input type="button">).
>>>> This is really incidental to the issue being discussed, most, if not all
>>>> html elements can be scripted and styled in a way that overides their
>>>> native
>>>> semantic
>>>> If this is allowed, then it follows that the addition of ARIA roles
>>>> should.$(.� not result in a conformance error, as the addition of ARIA.$(.�
>>>> is
>>>> incidental to the developers.$(.� intention to overide the native
>>>> semantics.
>>> 
>>> Couldn't the same argument be made for any other element as well? Does
>>> this mean that we should allow ARIA roles on all elements?
>>> 
>>> I guess there still are a few exceptions, like <script>, <style>, and
>>> <form>.
>>> 
>>> But for example <h1> can be overridden to look and act like a button
>>> or a link, does this mean that we should allow arbitrary ARIA on <h1>?
>>> 
>>> / Jonas
>> 
> Jon Gunderson, Ph.D.
> Coordinator Information Technology Accessibility
> Disability Resources and Educational Services
> 
> Rehabilitation Education Center
> Room 86
> 1207 S. Oak Street
> Champaign, Illinois 61820
> 
> Voice: (217) 244-5870
> 
> WWW: http://www.cita.illinois.edu/
> WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Privacy Information
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> This email (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications
> Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally
> privileged. It is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it
> is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is
> not the intended recipient, or agent responsible for delivering or copying of
> this communication, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender that you
> have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you.
>

Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 13:21:17 UTC