- From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 11:01:33 -0800
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: WAI XTech <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>
> On Dec 8, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > > James Craig writes: >> On Dec 8, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: >> >>> There's an important question that's being lost when discussed in the >>> context of ARIA-DescribedAt (or the context of HTML Longdesc). We need a >>> clear consensus statement somewhere in our ARIA docs about whether, or >>> not ARIA is restricted for use by AT user agents via Accessibility APIs. >>> >>> In other words, do we insist the curb cut is for wheel chairs only? All >>> skate boards and baby strollers must stay away. >> >> This is a misinterpretation of the case against @aria-describedat. ARIA has always been an accessibility-only approach. If you want to use the curb cut analogy, native host language features are the curb cuts. @aria-describedat may be more equivalent to the bolt-on wheelchair elevators you sometimes see used to retrofit old staircases. > > No, I'm not trying to characterize your views about DescribedAt. Okay, my mistake. It may have been better to start a new thread than retitle the aria-describedat thread. > I'm > extracting one issue that ends up buried in among all kinds of > discussion about DescribedAt as well as about Longdesc. > > I'm trying to clearly say that this same question is emerging from other > contexts. I named Dpub as an additional source of additional ARIA that > may be even attractive to mainstream. > >> The recommended approach (quoting from ARIA 1.0 Section 1.1): >> > Exactly. That was 1.0.. > > We've several times said we would revisit this concept in 1.1 and > following. We need to do so apart from any particular feature. I have heard Cynthia say that from time-to-time though not regarding any specific feature. For the record, I disagree with the idea to make ARIA change any mainstream behavior of user agents. James > Janina > >>>> WAI-ARIA is intended to be used as a supplement for native language semantics, not a replacement. When the host language provides a feature that provides equivalent accessibility to the WAI-ARIA feature, use the host language feature. >> >> Using the native host language feature *is* the "curb cut" for everyone. ARIA is not, and never has been, a feature for everyone. ARIA provides amazing ability to retrofit legacy code and augment incomplete languages (including HTML) with additional accessibility semantics, but ARIA has never changed mainstream User Agent behavior. >> >> Case in point: tabindex. TabIndex is not part of ARIA for the same reason that @aria-describedat cannot be. It changes the behavior of the browser in a way that affects everyone, so any feature that provides this functionality MUST be part of the native host language. >> >> James >> >> >>> It's probably the case that DescribedAt is the wrong context for this >>> larger policy question because it's so freighted with deeply entrenched >>> viewpoints and a long, contentious history in the form of HTML Longdesc. >>> >>> However, other ARIA applications are shortly to emerge from our joint >>> efforts with the Digital Publishing Interest Group in the W3C which will >>> also raise the question of who can benefit from ARIA. This is why we >>> need a more widely applicable, and clearly articulated group consensus >>> on the question. >>> >>> We have heard recently, and in years past the browser developers among >>> us say that keeping ARIA restricted to AAPIs explains much of their >>> success. Because there are not requirements on mainstream browsers, it's >>> been relatively easy to add ARIA support. Here's David Bolter on this >>> very question in 2012, though it, too, is hidden in discussion of >>> Longdesc and DescribedAt: >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Mar/0405.html >>> >>> My personal view is that we should probably clarify our ARIA spec >>> language on this point. Where we currently have language such as "user >>> agents should" should be broken out into something along the lines of >>> "mainstream user agents may implement" with respect to their own UI, and >>> "should provide interfaces for AT applications via AAPIs." >>> >>> Can we perhaps separate the DescribedAt conversation along these lines? >>> The feature itself, vs who's expected to do what with it as a separate >>> conversation about who's allowed to benefit from ARIA in general? >>> >>> Janina >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 >>> sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net >>> Email: janina@rednote.net >>> >>> Linux Foundation Fellow >>> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org >>> >>> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) >>> Chair, Protocols & Formats http://www.w3.org/wai/pf >>> Indie UI http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/ >>> >> > > -- > > Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 > sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net > Email: janina@rednote.net > > Linux Foundation Fellow > Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org > > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) > Chair, Protocols & Formats http://www.w3.org/wai/pf > Indie UI http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
Received on Monday, 8 December 2014 19:02:07 UTC