Anne van Kesteren wrote:
So a while ago I posted http://annevankesteren.nl/2006/06/accessibility-ideas some of my thoughts regarding role=""... Basically, I don't really see authors taking extra steps to make things accessible.
The same argument applies, presumably, to the alt attribute. And captioning on videos. And most other accessibility aids. The idea that accessibility information can be entirely free is a myth - even where appropriate elements exist people have to take the time and effort to learn and use them, and do so in an appropriate way (see e.g. the misuse of em/strong, the weird heading structures that people employ, the surprising number of people who think that all markup should be replaced with <div>/<span> in the interests to 'simplicity', and numerous other examples of abused elements). So if we want any accessibility information at all, we must focus on making it useful and easy to provide rather than trying for "free", since free is impossible.
Accessibility should just be an integral part of the language, otherwise I don't think it will work. For authors it will seem that without role="" their custom widgets will work so there's no real benefit in adding it unless you work for some big company that hires a few "accessibility experts" who tell you to add it.
I think Aaron already addressed this point by noting that people who author their own widgets tend to be a bit more clued up than average. The availability of many widgets in libraries then means that less able authors can get the features for close-to free.
-- "You see stars that clear have been dead for years But the idea just lives on..." -- Bright Eyes
