On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 02:16:29 +0100, Charles Pritchard <ch...@jumis.com>
wrote:
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.
You're confusing author conformance requirements with UA conformance
requirements.
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.
Do you have concrete examples?
I don't believe it is appropriate for HTML to place restrictions on ARIA
DOM. It's does not reflect implementations.
It does not affect implementations at all.
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.".
That's not machine checkable so less likely to have an effect at all.
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
