On Tue, 08 May 2012 10:11:03 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl>
wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Charles McCathieNevile
<cha...@opera.com> wrote:
There will certainly be people who don't care about accessibility and
don't do anything at all (just as there are for simple things like alt
attributes), and others who care but get it wrong, but aligning with the
common model for those who care and are trying to get it right strikes
me as a big benefit.
I don't think that's really the argument.
I do. It's about paving cowpaths or inventing new wheels.
The argument is about whether the long tail is going to be accessible
(even if only a little bit) or not at all.
Sure. (To be pedantic, I would suggest it is more specifically about the
most efficient way to achieve the highest level of overall accessibility -
and frankly I think even that is a simplistic explanation because even in
the long tail some content matters more than other content).
That is, do we get
<select is=restricted-color-picker><option value=Red><option
value=Blue></select>
styled as a restricted color picker or
<restricted-color-picker options="red blue"/>
styled as a restricted color picker but with no fallback semantics
whatsoever.
This is a false dichotomy. The common pattern for doing this today would
be to use aria. There are various other methods, too - what makes
<rcp opt="r,b">
<select>
<option value="red">
<option value="blue">
</select>
</rcp>
unworkable?
Is there any reason to believe that ARIA will not work when it is used?
Since I assume there isn't, Two competing mechanisms to do the same thing
introduces a complexity for people trying to learn the right way, and the
likelihood that they will mix syntax from each and get it wrong.
cheers
--
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
