On 3/12/2012 5:52 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>
> Ignore the error, the HTML5 spec does not reflect implementations in
> this section about ARIA.
>
> The warning is not helpful to authors nor does it accurately describe
> the means in which ATs work with ARIA.
Are you saying you think the spec is wrong here and we should not allow
role="presentational"? I tend to agree, but I'm not sure it's worth it to
try and work out exactly when role=presentational is harmful (as in this
case) and when it's not.
Consider something like CSS ::outside; it's a nice feature, but it's not
in many browsers.
If it were, it'd make more sense for authors to mark up
decorative/presentation text in CSS.
Pragmatically authors they have to make decisions, and sometimes that
means various techniques with HTML4 and strange mixes of roles.
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>
> These should only be warnings, not errors. The language "Authors must
> not" is inappropriate.
Warnings are generally not useful. Either something is fine and we should
support it, or it's wrong and we should alert the author. I think "must"
is very much the appropriate requirement level here.
From the implementation-side, the spec is wrong, it ranks native HTML
semantics above ARIA DOM semantics.
As a "best practices" note, it seems overly optimistic. There are
situations with AT navigation where role conflicts do occur and/or
redundancy in tagging is helpful.
I don't believe it is appropriate for HTML to place restrictions on ARIA
DOM. It's does not reflect implementations. The HTML spec should only
specify what the default mappings are for HTML elements to ARIA.
Authors may be advised to test AT software with their product.
This statement is more in line with practice: "Authors must test
accessibility tree as part of development and usage of ARIA semantics.".
-Charles
