On 25/11/2010 2:21 AM, David Bolter wrote: > 1. Should we strive to add roles to the IA2 spec such that we don't need > to expose the [landmark] role as an object attribute? I think not. Imo, these aren't roles in the traditional sense; they don't identify what the control does or how it behaves. I guess maybe it makes some sense for the HTML5 elements, since they can only ever be landmarks. However, in ARIA, a control could be a landmark as well as something else. I argued that the concept of landmark and role should never have been lumped into the "role" attribute in ARIA in the first place - they are very different - but I was rather bluntly informed by someone in the ARIA group that this wasn't the case, that authors would see them as one and the same and that I clearly had no concept of universal design. :)
> 2. Should we promote the object attributes method as a first class > solution and standardize how they are implemented? I think so. We may want to consider renaming the attribute to "landmarks", though this will break current adopters. > 3. Are landmark roles distinct enough to warrant a distinct way of > exposing them? Perhaps. However, this would require another method, which means a new interface (IAccessibleLandmarks or such). I don't think it's worth it when the object attributes solution is working fine. Jamie -- James Teh Vice President NV Access Inc, ABN 61773362390 Email: [email protected] Web site: http://www.nvaccess.org/ _______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
