Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
On 11 Aug 2008, at 20:30, Rob Crowther wrote: David Storey wrote: thing it adds is giving you more brownie points for validating, while not allowing WAI-ARIA to work if JavaScript is turned off. I would have thought that, if JavaScript was turned off, the ARIA stuff wouldn't be too useful. As its purpose is to communicate dynamic changes performed with JS to assistive technologies? If JS is turned off then there's no in page updates and regular WCAG applies? Does ARIA have benefits even to 'static' HTML apps? It can do. For example, authors often create controls using bits or mark up like spans and divs. While it is best to use the correct HTML element, ARIA can tell the screen reader what you mean the mark-u to be. Google uses divs instead of buttons quite often for example (probably for styling reasons). While that is a bit more contrived there are controls, such as trees or sliders where there are no correct html element to use. Mostly JavaScript would be used, but it is possible with just server side code if needed. Rob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** David Storey Chief Web Opener, Product Manager Opera Dragonfly, Consumer Product Manager Opera Core, Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group member Consumer Product Management & Developer Relations Opera Software ASA Oslo, Norway Mobile: +47 94 22 02 32 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://my.opera.com/dstorey *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
R: [WSG] Re: ARIA
Return Receipt Your R: [WSG] Re: ARIA document: wasDennis Lapcewich/R6/USDAFS received by: at:08/11/2008 12:38:32 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
David Storey wrote: thing it adds is giving you more brownie points for validating, while not allowing WAI-ARIA to work if JavaScript is turned off. I would have thought that, if JavaScript was turned off, the ARIA stuff wouldn't be too useful. As its purpose is to communicate dynamic changes performed with JS to assistive technologies? If JS is turned off then there's no in page updates and regular WCAG applies? Does ARIA have benefits even to 'static' HTML apps? Rob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
David Storey wrote: Then your solutions are either to do as the W3C suggests and use the class attribute for WAI-ARIA role names, and add afterwards using JavaScript/DOM, or validate before adding the ARIA stuff, then add when you are sure the rest of the mark up is correct. or just ignore the whole thing, until the validator can handle it :-) Let's hope that's reasonably soon... -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
R: [WSG] Re: ARIA
Hi Hassan and everybody, I think that we have to take a while of silence and think about what is *necessary* and what is *pointless*. Well. I'm member of W3C PFWG but I'd like to stress that what follows is my opinion and does not reflect necessary the opinion of the whole Group. Well, I think that: 1. If you provide a valid mark-up you don't need to validate it. 2. If you apply ARIA roles, states and properties in your mark-up and HTML Validator does not validate them... what's the problem? Is the Browser does not render the page correctly? Well, the page is correctly rendered. 3. If you put ARIA in your mark-up, after that you validate the page, are you making some mistakes? No After that I suppose that serving a page understandable by AT (Assistive Technology) is much more important of validation of the page... (I'm not flaming but) I'm not saying to serve invalid pages but: valid mark-up (self validation) with gain of ARIA is better than valid mark-up (HTML Validator). In conclusion, ARIA is still a Working Draft. Don't pretend to have all before the time. *NOTE* I want to clarify again that what I wrote reflects exclusively my humble point of view. Cheers. Diego La Monica Member of Protocols and Formats Working Group for IWA/HWG mobile: +39 3337235382 - skype: diego.la.monica web: http://diegolamonica.info - http://jastegg.it > -Messaggio originale- > Da: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Per > conto di Hassan Schroeder > Inviato: lunedì 11 agosto 2008 17.17 > A: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Oggetto: Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA > > David Dorward wrote: > > >> When will the W3C validator support ARIA? > > > > As I said "Now". > > Using your provided DTD, a simple test file results in: > > Errors found while checking this document as -//W3C//DTD XHTML+ARIA > 1.0//EN! > > Validation Output: 13 Errors > > 1. Error Line 2, Column 76: could not get > "/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-aria-1.dtd" from "www.w3.org" (reason given was "Not > Found"). > >…//www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-aria-1.dtd"> > >✉ > 2. Error Line 2, Column 76: DTD did not contain element declaration > for document type name. > >…//www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-aria-1.dtd"> > >✉ > >A DOCTYPE declares the version of the language used, as well as > what the root (top) element of your document will be. For example, if > the top element of your document is , the DOCTYPE declaration will > look like: " >In most cases, it is safer not to type or edit the DOCTYPE > declaration at all, and preferable to let a tool include it, or copy and > paste it from a trusted list of DTDs. > > > > > Perhaps you have an example file that validates? > > -- > Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com > >dream. code. > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
On 11 Aug 2008, at 17:26, Hassan Schroeder wrote: David Storey wrote: When will the W3C validator support ARIA? I've no idea for HTML, but I'm not sure it is 100% important. If the rest of your code is valid and the only thing that is invalid is the WAI-ARIA stuff then that would be good enough for me... You're missing the point -- I validate not for religious purity but to make sure I have a valid DOM (no overlapped/missing tags, typos in element names or attributes, etc.). Then your solutions are either to do as the W3C suggests and use the class attribute for WAI-ARIA role names, and add afterwards using JavaScript/DOM, or validate before adding the ARIA stuff, then add when you are sure the rest of the mark up is correct. Analyzing each validation to see if errors are "OK errors" or "real errors" is not acceptable. We want green bar here, always :-) -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** David Storey Chief Web Opener, Product Manager Opera Dragonfly, Consumer Product Manager Opera Core, Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group member Consumer Product Management & Developer Relations Opera Software ASA Oslo, Norway Mobile: +47 94 22 02 32 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://my.opera.com/dstorey *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
David Storey wrote: When will the W3C validator support ARIA? I've no idea for HTML, but I'm not sure it is 100% important. If the rest of your code is valid and the only thing that is invalid is the WAI-ARIA stuff then that would be good enough for me... You're missing the point -- I validate not for religious purity but to make sure I have a valid DOM (no overlapped/missing tags, typos in element names or attributes, etc.). Analyzing each validation to see if errors are "OK errors" or "real errors" is not acceptable. We want green bar here, always :-) -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
On 11 Aug 2008, at 16:16, Hassan Schroeder wrote: David Dorward wrote: When will the W3C validator support ARIA? As I said "Now". Using your provided DTD, a simple test file results in: 1. Error Line 2, Column 76: could not get "/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml- aria-1.dtd" from "www.w3.org" (reason given was "Not Found"). Yes, see my follow up. There are problems with the draft ARIA specification. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
David Dorward wrote: When will the W3C validator support ARIA? As I said "Now". Using your provided DTD, a simple test file results in: Errors found while checking this document as -//W3C//DTD XHTML+ARIA 1.0//EN! Validation Output: 13 Errors 1. Error Line 2, Column 76: could not get "/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-aria-1.dtd" from "www.w3.org" (reason given was "Not Found"). …//www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-aria-1.dtd"> ✉ 2. Error Line 2, Column 76: DTD did not contain element declaration for document type name. …//www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-aria-1.dtd"> ✉ A DOCTYPE declares the version of the language used, as well as what the root (top) element of your document will be. For example, if the top element of your document is , the DOCTYPE declaration will look like: " In most cases, it is safer not to type or edit the DOCTYPE declaration at all, and preferable to let a tool include it, or copy and paste it from a trusted list of DTDs. Perhaps you have an example file that validates? -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
On 11 Aug 2008, at 16:47, David Dorward wrote: On 11 Aug 2008, at 15:14, Hassan Schroeder wrote: David Dorward wrote: It doesn't really reject it, it just warns you that the combination doesn't make much sense. Sigh. Semantics. That was one suggested DOCTYPE that I found -- and no, I'm not sure at this point where -- but regardless, do you know the answer to the *original question*: When will the W3C validator support ARIA? As I said "Now". Or, if you believe it already does, what is the appropriate DOCTYPE to use? Umm. What does the spec say? http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/ says: "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-aria-1.dtd "> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en"> ... This is fine, but is XHML served as XML, so it wont work in IE, thus the real world (unfortunately) -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** David Storey Chief Web Opener, Product Manager Opera Dragonfly, Consumer Product Manager Opera Core, Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group member Consumer Product Management & Developer Relations Opera Software ASA Oslo, Norway Mobile: +47 94 22 02 32 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://my.opera.com/dstorey *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
On 11 Aug 2008, at 16:14, Hassan Schroeder wrote: David Dorward wrote: It doesn't really reject it, it just warns you that the combination doesn't make much sense. Sigh. Semantics. That was one suggested DOCTYPE that I found -- and no, I'm not sure at this point where -- but regardless, do you know the answer to the *original question*: When will the W3C validator support ARIA? I've no idea for HTML, but I'm not sure it is 100% important. If the rest of your code is valid and the only thing that is invalid is the WAI-ARIA stuff then that would be good enough for me as it is a W3C spec that is approved and implemented by all the major browser. It is not like you are adding something invalid that only one browser implements or will make browsers rely on error handling. For XHTML it is a different kettle of fish as it was designed to be extensible using name spaces. Of course, you can't use XHTML as IE doesn't support it, so even with the XHTML doctype, browsers will treat it as HTML if you use text/html. Or, if you believe it already does, what is the appropriate DOCTYPE to use? As http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/ARIA/BestPractices/Introduction states: "...extensibility to XHTML, for ARIA, is achieved through namespaces (i.e.: aria:haspopup). HTML documents do not support namespaces, so the required accessibility role and state metadata cannot be included directly in these documents. In HTML 4, authors can define accessible role and accessible states as keywords in the class attribute, then use an ECMAScript library to parse the class keywords and copy them into the appropriate role and state namespaces after the document has been loaded. This enables provision of ARIA states and properties while circumventing the HTML validator by using the class attribute." This will allow it to validate, but seems to add a whole lot of extra work for what is really just fooling the validator into validating as the WAI-ARIA stuff will still be in the DOM at the end of the day. Only thing it adds is giving you more brownie points for validating, while not allowing WAI-ARIA to work if JavaScript is turned off. -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** David Storey Chief Web Opener, Product Manager Opera Dragonfly, Consumer Product Manager Opera Core, Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group member Consumer Product Management & Developer Relations Opera Software ASA Oslo, Norway Mobile: +47 94 22 02 32 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://my.opera.com/dstorey *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
On 11 Aug 2008, at 15:47, David Dorward wrote: http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/ says: "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-aria-1.dtd "> ... except that http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-aria-1.dtd is a 404 error. This is one of the perils of working from a draft rather than a recommendation. You might want to wait for ARIA to be stable. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
On 11 Aug 2008, at 15:14, Hassan Schroeder wrote: David Dorward wrote: It doesn't really reject it, it just warns you that the combination doesn't make much sense. Sigh. Semantics. That was one suggested DOCTYPE that I found -- and no, I'm not sure at this point where -- but regardless, do you know the answer to the *original question*: When will the W3C validator support ARIA? As I said "Now". Or, if you believe it already does, what is the appropriate DOCTYPE to use? Umm. What does the spec say? http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/ says: "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-aria-1.dtd "> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en"> ... -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
David Dorward wrote: It doesn't really reject it, it just warns you that the combination doesn't make much sense. Sigh. Semantics. That was one suggested DOCTYPE that I found -- and no, I'm not sure at this point where -- but regardless, do you know the answer to the *original question*: When will the W3C validator support ARIA? Or, if you believe it already does, what is the appropriate DOCTYPE to use? -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
On 10 Aug 2008, at 23:49, Hassan Schroeder wrote: David Dorward wrote: (Obviously you have to validate against a DTD that includes ARIA features) Right, and the only thing I could find relating to this was: This is a public identifier that I've never heard of ... "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";> ... but this is the system identifier for plain old, regular XHTML 1.0 Strict. :: which the validator rejects -- hence the question :-) It doesn't really reject it, it just warns you that the combination doesn't make much sense. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
David Dorward wrote: Anyone know when the W3C validator will support it? :-) (Obviously you have to validate against a DTD that includes ARIA features) Right, and the only thing I could find relating to this was: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";> :: which the validator rejects -- hence the question :-) -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
On 10 Aug 2008, at 23:09, Hassan Schroeder wrote: David Storey wrote: HTML4 and XHTML1 are the here and now. WAI_ARIA was retrofitted from XHTML2 (I believe) to HTML so that it could be used right away. All major browser vendors support it now, once IE8 comes out. Anyone know when the W3C validator will support it? :-) The only thing that would stop the validator from supporting it would be if you used a Doctype which was: (a) In the validator's local catalogue and (b) Referenced a DTD that had been *changed* to add ARIA features and (c) That DTD hadn't been updated in the local catalogue since that change (Obviously you have to validate against a DTD that includes ARIA features) -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
David Storey wrote: HTML4 and XHTML1 are the here and now. WAI_ARIA was retrofitted from XHTML2 (I believe) to HTML so that it could be used right away. All major browser vendors support it now, once IE8 comes out. Anyone know when the W3C validator will support it? :-) -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
On 10 Aug 2008, at 11:53, James Jeffery wrote: Progressive enhancement and accessibility. Hmmm. I am not sure about this, I thought accessibility was about providing access to websites from all angles, not progressivly enhancing access to users with more up to date technology or browsers. Would it not be better to include ARIA markup in HTML5 rather than trying to adapt it to the current version of HTML? Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of ARIA. In an ideal world yes, but HTML5 is years away, and not ready for authors to start using in the wild yet. HTML4 and XHTML1 are the here and now. WAI_ARIA was retrofitted from XHTML2 (I believe) to HTML so that it could be used right away. All major browser vendors support it now, once IE8 comes out. That means people with disabilities will start seeing the benefits now, instead of many years down the line. I'm not on the HTML5 group or follow it as closely as I'd like, but I don't see too many reasons why many of the roles used in WAI-ARIA wont be added as elements in HTML5, or at least WAI-ARIA becoming part of that spec. It just seems like another quick fix to plug the current problems. I can't imagine ARIA markup being used all that much anyway (I will use it, but I am talking about the majority of other developers). One of the reasons is because the majority of poor developers out there cannot be bothered to learn anything new and don't give a hoot about accessibility. The state of the web at the moment in terms of accessibility is poor anyway. This shouldn't be as big a problem as it seems on the surface, because library vendors have already, or are in the process of adding it to their libraries. Developers will get it for free when they use off the shelf components, such as provided by Dojo, YUI etc. I would guess the poor developers you speak of would rather take a pre-written slider (for example) than write their own from scratch. I was speaking with a top PHP developer not so long back. He works for a company and is on serious money, and even he little idea about accessibility on the web. I think before we start implementing new ideas we need to inform the the current and the up and coming developers about accessibility. Education is really important, but that applies to all web technologies, not just WAI-ARIA. This is one of the reasons why Opera commissioned the Web Standards Curriculum, and a recent article on WAI- ARIA. You can check out both on dev.opera.com. Its not my place to say what should and what shouldn't happen on the web, these are just my views. It kind of reminds me of microformats. A brilliant idea but underused by developers. I am just going to carry on learning, and hope that the ARIA reaches its goals and targets and doesn't get brushed under the carpet. I'm hopeful because of the early adoption by both browser and library vendors that it will be adopted. Even if it is just used by the likes of Google to make its map controls accessible then that will be a small win. Because of the way it was designed it is possible to retrofit previously inaccessible sites to make them more accessible. James On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Laura Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What about browsers that don't support ARIA markup? Graceful degradation (if the page is well written). Or progressive enhancement. Some references: http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/javascript#access A good intro to WAI ARIA by Gez Lemon: http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/introduction-to-wai-aria/ Best Regards, Laura ___ Laura L. Carlson Information Technology Systems and Services University of Minnesota Duluth Duluth, MN U.S.A. 55812-3009 http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** David Storey Chief Web Opener, Product Manager Opera Dragonfly, Consumer Product Manager Opera Core, Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group member Consumer Product Management & Developer Relations Opera Software ASA Oslo, Norway Mobile: +47 94 22 02 32 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://my.opera.com/dstorey *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[WSG] Re: ARIA
Progressive enhancement and accessibility. Hmmm. I am not sure about this There's a slight difference between progressive enhancement techniques and graceful degradation. Graceful degradation, tends to be that you try to do everything with the scripting and fall back if you can, whereas progressive enhancement means that you start just assuming that scripting is not available and add. It is geared towards the lowest common denominator. Best Regards, Laura ___ Laura L. Carlson Information Technology Systems and Services University of Minnesota Duluth Duluth, MN U.S.A. 55812-3009 http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Re: ARIA
Progressive enhancement and accessibility. Hmmm. I am not sure about this, I thought accessibility was about providing access to websites from all angles, not progressivly enhancing access to users with more up to date technology or browsers. Would it not be better to include ARIA markup in HTML5 rather than trying to adapt it to the current version of HTML? Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of ARIA. It just seems like another quick fix to plug the current problems. I can't imagine ARIA markup being used all that much anyway (I will use it, but I am talking about the majority of other developers). One of the reasons is because the majority of poor developers out there cannot be bothered to learn anything new and don't give a hoot about accessibility. The state of the web at the moment in terms of accessibility is poor anyway. I was speaking with a top PHP developer not so long back. He works for a company and is on serious money, and even he little idea about accessibility on the web. I think before we start implementing new ideas we need to inform the the current and the up and coming developers about accessibility. Its not my place to say what should and what shouldn't happen on the web, these are just my views. It kind of reminds me of microformats. A brilliant idea but underused by developers. I am just going to carry on learning, and hope that the ARIA reaches its goals and targets and doesn't get brushed under the carpet. James On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Laura Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What about browsers that don't support ARIA markup? >>> >> >> Graceful degradation (if the page is well written). >> > > Or progressive enhancement. > > Some references: > http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/javascript#access > > A good intro to WAI ARIA by Gez Lemon: > http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/introduction-to-wai-aria/ > > Best Regards, > Laura > ___ > Laura L. Carlson > Information Technology Systems and Services > University of Minnesota Duluth > Duluth, MN U.S.A. 55812-3009 > http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/ > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Re: ARIA
What about browsers that don't support ARIA markup? Graceful degradation (if the page is well written). Or progressive enhancement. Some references: http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/javascript#access A good intro to WAI ARIA by Gez Lemon: http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/introduction-to-wai-aria/ Best Regards, Laura ___ Laura L. Carlson Information Technology Systems and Services University of Minnesota Duluth Duluth, MN U.S.A. 55812-3009 http://www.d.umn.edu/goto/webdesign/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
