E-mail List Archives
Thread: HTML specs - can I whine for a minute?
Number of posts in this thread: 8 (In chronological order)
From: glen walker
Date: Thu, Aug 19 2021 12:21PM
Subject: HTML specs - can I whine for a minute?
No previous message | Next message →
I used to use https://www.w3.org/TR/html53/ when I'd quote about html
specs. I know that version was being phased out and how that page
automatically redirects to https://html.spec.whatwg.org/
One of the nice things about the previous version of the spec was that it
had accessibility information combined with all the other information.
There were two sections called "Allowed ARIA role attribute values" and
"Allowed ARIA state and property attributes". Those two sections have been
removed from the whatwg spec. Does anyone know if that's intentional or
will they be brought back?
The new spec has an "Accessibility considerations" link but it points to a
generic definition that makes you follow a link to "ARIAHTML" (
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#refsARIAHTML), which is another generic
section that points to "ARIA in HTML" (https://w3c.github.io/html-aria/),
which finally has some information in it, but you then have to search for
the right html element. It's a lot of hunting for information that used to
be all concise and grouped together.
For example, the <button> element, here's a link to the archived old spec:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210606185950/http://www.w3.org/TR/html53/sec-forms.html#the-button-element
It's easy to see the default role is "button" and the other roles that are
applicable.
The new spec is
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#the-button-element
If you follow the accessibility links to the "ARIA in HTML" (
https://w3c.github.io/html-aria/), you still have to search for the button
info on that page. It'd be nice if the whatwg doc pointed directly to
https://w3c.github.io/html-aria/#el-button for the accessibility info.
It'd be even better if that info was all contained in one place for the
button spec.
From: Steve Green
Date: Thu, Aug 19 2021 12:39PM
Subject: Re: HTML specs - can I whine for a minute?
← Previous message | Next message →
Let me join you in the whining. All the documentation relating to HTML5, WCAG and ARIA is a complete mess. The ambiguities, contradictions and omissions are bad enough, but there is no discernible information architecture either. It's nigh-on impossible to find out what the latest version of anything is, and in some cases there are multiple similar, but different, versions of documents, sometimes with the same version number. Some are in GitHub, which I am told take precedence over those on the W3C website, which is entirely non-intuitive.
Sometimes you just have to know that documents exist, because they don't seem to be discoverable.
Perhaps it all makes sense to the people who create and maintain the documentation, but makes no sense to some of us who dip in and out periodically.
Worse still, some are so-called "living documents", which can change in any way at any time, yet there doesn't appear to be any way for us to be notified of the changes. There doesn't even seem to be any version control or archiving for such documents, so you sometimes cannot find content you are certain used to exist. Or maybe there is and I just can't find it.
Fortunately, the Internet and accessibility are entirely unimportant, so none of this really matters.
Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd
From:
Subject: Re: HTML specs - can I whine for a minute?
← Previous message | Next message →
I agree, the loss of that information from the HTML specification is a
step backwards. I raised it as an issue at the time [1].
The reason it hasn't happened is that the source data lives in two W3C
specifications, the HTML Accessibility API Mappings (AAM) and the ARIA
in HTML conformance rules, and there is reluctance to pull in content
from those specifications directly into the HTML standard.
Looking back through the issue thread, it seems there was quite a bit of
support for having the information there, so perhaps it's a conversation
worth having again some time.
Léonie.
[1] https://github.com/whatwg/html/issues/3282
On 19/08/2021 19:21, glen walker wrote:
> I used to use https://www.w3.org/TR/html53/ when I'd quote about html
> specs. I know that version was being phased out and how that page
> automatically redirects to https://html.spec.whatwg.org/
>
> One of the nice things about the previous version of the spec was that it
> had accessibility information combined with all the other information.
> There were two sections called "Allowed ARIA role attribute values" and
> "Allowed ARIA state and property attributes". Those two sections have been
> removed from the whatwg spec. Does anyone know if that's intentional or
> will they be brought back?
>
> The new spec has an "Accessibility considerations" link but it points to a
> generic definition that makes you follow a link to "ARIAHTML" (
> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#refsARIAHTML), which is another generic
> section that points to "ARIA in HTML" (https://w3c.github.io/html-aria/),
> which finally has some information in it, but you then have to search for
> the right html element. It's a lot of hunting for information that used to
> be all concise and grouped together.
>
> For example, the <button> element, here's a link to the archived old spec:
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20210606185950/http://www.w3.org/TR/html53/sec-forms.html#the-button-element
>
> It's easy to see the default role is "button" and the other roles that are
> applicable.
>
> The new spec is
>
> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#the-button-element
>
> If you follow the accessibility links to the "ARIA in HTML" (
> https://w3c.github.io/html-aria/), you still have to search for the button
> info on that page. It'd be nice if the whatwg doc pointed directly to
> https://w3c.github.io/html-aria/#el-button for the accessibility info.
> It'd be even better if that info was all contained in one place for the
> button spec.
> > > > >
--
Director @TetraLogical
https://tetralogical.com
From: Peter Weil
Date: Fri, Aug 20 2021 8:00AM
Subject: Re: HTML specs - can I whine for a minute?
← Previous message | Next message →
Hear hear to this, Steve! It's a pretty onerous affair to locate the right document in order to track something down. The information is scattered all over the place, and there are multiple versions of each document. It's not at all user-friendly, and it wastes time. I have many of them bookmarked, but inevitably I have to look in at least two or three places before I find what I'm looking for.
Peter
--
Peter Weil, Web Developer
University Marketing
University of WisconsinâMadison
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
(m) 608-220-3089
On Aug 19, 2021, 1:39 PM -0500, WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, wrote:
Let me join you in the whining. All the documentation relating to HTML5, WCAG and ARIA is a complete mess. The ambiguities, contradictions and omissions are bad enough, but there is no discernible information architecture either. It's nigh-on impossible to find out what the latest version of anything is, and in some cases there are multiple similar, but different, versions of documents, sometimes with the same version number. Some are in GitHub, which I am told take precedence over those on the W3C website, which is entirely non-intuitive.
Sometimes you just have to know that documents exist, because they don't seem to be discoverable.
Perhaps it all makes sense to the people who create and maintain the documentation, but makes no sense to some of us who dip in and out periodically.
From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Date: Fri, Aug 20 2021 8:45AM
Subject: Re: HTML specs - can I whine for a minute?
← Previous message | Next message →
Whine +1
** katie **
*Katie Haritos-Shea*
*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect*
*Senior Product Manager/Compliance/Accessibility **SME*
*, **Core Merchant Framework UX, Clover*
*W3C Advisory Committee Member and Representative for Knowbility *
*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS = *
*CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>;
*Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* * = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >* *| **Seneca, SC **|* *LinkedIn Profile
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>;*
People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, but they will
never forget how you made them feel.......
Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:01 AM Peter Weil < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hear hear to this, Steve! It's a pretty onerous affair to locate the right
> document in order to track something down. The information is scattered all
> over the place, and there are multiple versions of each document. It's not
> at all user-friendly, and it wastes time. I have many of them bookmarked,
> but inevitably I have to look in at least two or three places before I find
> what I'm looking for.
>
> Peter
>
>
> --
>
> Peter Weil, Web Developer
> University Marketing
> University of WisconsinâMadison
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> (m) 608-220-3089
>
> On Aug 19, 2021, 1:39 PM -0500, WebAIM Discussion List <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, wrote:
>
> Let me join you in the whining. All the documentation relating to HTML5,
> WCAG and ARIA is a complete mess. The ambiguities, contradictions and
> omissions are bad enough, but there is no discernible information
> architecture either. It's nigh-on impossible to find out what the latest
> version of anything is, and in some cases there are multiple similar, but
> different, versions of documents, sometimes with the same version number.
> Some are in GitHub, which I am told take precedence over those on the W3C
> website, which is entirely non-intuitive.
>
> Sometimes you just have to know that documents exist, because they don't
> seem to be discoverable.
>
> Perhaps it all makes sense to the people who create and maintain the
> documentation, but makes no sense to some of us who dip in and out
> periodically.
> > > > >
From: glen walker
Date: Fri, Aug 20 2021 9:49AM
Subject: Re: HTML specs - can I whine for a minute?
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks for the github reference, Léonie. Looks like a lot of thought went
into it 4 years ago, then there was a 2 year lull, then it picked up again
2 years ago but has been silent since then. Since I haven't volunteered my
time to help with this issue, I can't complain about how long it's taking.
It would be nice for the spec to have all the information in one place so I
don't have to follow several links to gather what I need, but I also
understand not repeating information in several documents because that's
harder to maintain and keep in sync.
At a minimum, the html spec should have links to the *specific* role and
attribute sections for that element and not just point to the top of a very
long document. So the spec for the button element,
https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#the-button-element
could have a link to the valid roles for the button,
https://w3c.github.io/html-aria/#el-button
and a link to the valid attributes for the default role,
https://w3c.github.io/aria/#button
(or https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/#button or
https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#button or insert your favorite flavor
of WAI-ARIA)
Quick tangent, as a sighted user, I like the formatting style of the
TR/wai-aria documents (eg, https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#button) with
table grid lines and row shading to help the eye track the information.
The github version of the doc (https://w3c.github.io/aria/#button) has
neither grid lines nor shading so is much harder to read. But that is just
a simple styling adjustment. I'm guessing (hoping) when the github
document becomes official, the styling will be better. At least it's using
semantic html and table row headers :-)
From: Peter Krautzberger
Date: Fri, Aug 20 2021 10:43AM
Subject: Re: HTML specs - can I whine for a minute?
← Previous message | Next message →
Regarding the tangent:
> The github version of the doc (https://w3c.github.io/aria/#button) has
> neither grid lines nor shading so is much harder to read.
The relevant stylesheet is missing on github pages.
I've filed an issue at https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1603
Peter.
Am Fr., 20. Aug. 2021 um 17:49 Uhr schrieb glen walker <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >:
> Thanks for the github reference, Léonie. Looks like a lot of thought went
> into it 4 years ago, then there was a 2 year lull, then it picked up again
> 2 years ago but has been silent since then. Since I haven't volunteered my
> time to help with this issue, I can't complain about how long it's taking.
>
> It would be nice for the spec to have all the information in one place so I
> don't have to follow several links to gather what I need, but I also
> understand not repeating information in several documents because that's
> harder to maintain and keep in sync.
>
> At a minimum, the html spec should have links to the *specific* role and
> attribute sections for that element and not just point to the top of a very
> long document. So the spec for the button element,
>
> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#the-button-element
>
> could have a link to the valid roles for the button,
>
> https://w3c.github.io/html-aria/#el-button
>
> and a link to the valid attributes for the default role,
>
> https://w3c.github.io/aria/#button
> (or https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/#button or
> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#button or insert your favorite flavor
> of WAI-ARIA)
>
> Quick tangent, as a sighted user, I like the formatting style of the
> TR/wai-aria documents (eg, https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#button)
> with
> table grid lines and row shading to help the eye track the information.
> The github version of the doc (https://w3c.github.io/aria/#button) has
> neither grid lines nor shading so is much harder to read. But that is just
> a simple styling adjustment. I'm guessing (hoping) when the github
> document becomes official, the styling will be better. At least it's using
> semantic html and table row headers :-)
> > > > >
From: glen walker
Date: Fri, Aug 20 2021 11:23AM
Subject: Re: HTML specs - can I whine for a minute?
← Previous message | No next message
That was fast. They already fixed it. The styling on the github page,
https://w3c.github.io/aria/#button, looks good now.
If only the role and state information could be included in the html spec
just as quickly :-)
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:44 AM Peter Krautzberger < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:
> Regarding the tangent:
>
> > The github version of the doc (https://w3c.github.io/aria/#button) has
> > neither grid lines nor shading so is much harder to read.
>
> The relevant stylesheet is missing on github pages.
> I've filed an issue at https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1603
>
> Peter.
>
>