w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire ISSUE-109: change ARIA section title and add extra text about use of ARIA - Straw Poll for Objections
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2010-08-11 to 2010-08-19.
5 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Objections to the Change Proposal to change the title and provide advice about ARIA scope
- Objections to the Change Proposal to change the title and provide advice discouraging conflicting semantics
1. Objections to the Change Proposal to change the title and provide advice about ARIA scope
We have a Change Proposal to change the title of the WAI-ARIA section of the HTML5 spec and provide advice about ARIA scope. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.
Details
| Responder | Objections to the Change Proposal to change the title and provide advice about ARIA scope |
|---|---|
| Martin Kliehm | I support this proposal, however I'd suggest to expand the acronym and remove the reference to the WAI working group, as it will be unclear to most people why this is "WAI-ARIA", when it isn't "PF-ARIA" or "WHATWG-HTML". My preferred title would be: "Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA)" |
| Theresa O'Connor | I have no opinion on how to improve the name of the ARIA section, so I have no objection to the first parts of either change proposal. For the second part of Faulkner's CP, I object to adding a sentence like "The WAI-ARIA specification neither requires nor forbids...", as it is not the place of the HTML spec to assert things about what the ARIA spec may or may not require. (Also, and as always, I'd prefer the exact text to be left to the editor's discretion.) I'm made uncomfortable by this poll. Each CP attached to it has several parts, and it's only the first parts that directly contradict one another. I'm strongly in favor of the second and third parts of Hickson's CP. If the WG adopts Faulkner's CP over Hickson's CP, it's not clear to me if that would prevent the editor from making the edits he suggests in the second and third parts of his CP. To the extent that adopting Faukner's CP would do so, I object to adopting it. I do not know of a valid use-case for attaching ARIA semantics to HTML elements in a way inconsistent with the HTML element's native semantics. In such cases, an HTML element with more congruent semantics should be used. Without validators flagging such cases, authors might never know that they're authoring incoherent markup. |
| Steve Faulkner | I have no objections to this proposal. |
| John Foliot | |
| Richard Schwerdtfeger | I do not have an object to changing the title to the section. |
2. Objections to the Change Proposal to change the title and provide advice discouraging conflicting semantics
We have a Change the title of the Annotations for Assistive Technologies section, add more introductory material, and urge implementors to avoid exposing conflicting semantics in their user interface.. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal specifically with respect to the figure element, please state your objections below.
Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.
Details
| Responder | Objections to the Change Proposal to change the title and provide advice discouraging conflicting semantics |
|---|---|
| Martin Kliehm | I believe "annotations for assistive technology products" is inconsistent with the other heading structure, therefore I support the counter proposal by Steve Faulkner: something along the line of "Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA)" is much more consistent. Also "annotations" imply that they are informative, non-normative. Are they? Furthermore I object against user agents exposing ARIA exclusively to assistive technology (AT), for the following reasons: as far as I know no browser currently detects AT devices or sets a scriptable variable. Browsers map HTML elements to the underlying accessibility API of the operating system; an ARIA role trumps a default element role, thus the ARIA role is mapped to the API. This behavior is independent of the presence of assistive technology. Considering the wide range of AT devices that go well beyond "just screen readers" this is a reasonable decision. Besides AT can come in the form of a browser text-to-speech plugin that will most likely behave different than a screen reader software, for example it will not make itself known to the OS. So browsers do not distinguish whether assistive technology is present or not. As user agents always respect ARIA, the mapping will always be adapted. If user agents find a sensible way to re-use ARIA information for the benefit of all users, that's fine. We should encourage that innovation, not prohibit it. |
| Theresa O'Connor | |
| Steve Faulkner | I object to the proposed title change as it is even more obscure than the current title. I object to the addition of the conformance requirements as proposed, because there is a lack detail as to what the changes will be, I cannot support a change proposal that provides insufficient detail to properly assess what the impact of such a proposal would be. Besides the inclusion of this in a change proposal by the editor is farcical as he may add anything to the spec at a time of his choosing. I have provided a detailed rebuttal of the proposal here http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ariasection#Rebuttal_of_counter_proposal In regards to edward o'connors objection "I object to adding a sentence like "The WAI-ARIA specification neither requires nor forbids...", as it is not the place of the HTML spec to assert things about what the ARIA spec may or may not require." The current ARIA in HTML5 section already does this 6 instances of "(ARIA restricts usage of this role to one per page)" + "Authors may use the ARIA role and aria-* attributes on HTML elements, in accordance with the requirements described in the ARIA specifications". What is different about this particular instance? |
| John Foliot | Please see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010Aug/0031.html |
| Richard Schwerdtfeger | I object to the proposed title change. I also disagree with the statement that ARIA is not recognized by developers. I would argue that WAI-ARIA has more implementation world wide than much of the HTML 5 specification. Developers who need to comply with WCAG 2 or the 508 refresh will be required to use WAI-ARIA to some degree. WAI-ARIA should be considered the W3C declarative accessibility markup for the Web. Consequently, WAI-ARIA, which is also a recommendation track specification, should be included in the title for this section. I don't object to adding more introductory text but that is addressed as part of the proposal to address issue 85: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ARIAinHTML5 Proposal http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ARIAinHTML5 more accurately addresses the applicability of WAI-ARIA to HTML 5 to best serve interoperability with assistive technologies. This change proposal reworks this section and more accurately addresses where ARIA should be restricted to best support assistive technologies. So, from this perspective I object to this change proposal in favor of Proposal http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ARIAinHTML5 |
More details on responses
- Martin Kliehm: last responded on 13, August 2010 at 08:56 (UTC)
- Theresa O'Connor: last responded on 13, August 2010 at 17:38 (UTC)
- Steve Faulkner: last responded on 14, August 2010 at 11:23 (UTC)
- John Foliot: last responded on 14, August 2010 at 17:11 (UTC)
- Richard Schwerdtfeger: last responded on 18, August 2010 at 20:15 (UTC)
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
Report issues
on GitHub project