Twenty Thirteen: Some WAI-ARIA roles are implied by elements

[gorgoglionemeister]

In HTML5, some roles are implied by the element. For example

<nav id="site-navigation" class="navigation main-navigation" role="navigation">

can be replaced by

<nav id="site-navigation" class="navigation main-navigation">

See ​http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/dom.html#sec-strong-native-semantics

I've not read all the theme markup so it there may be other cases like this in the code.

[esmi]

I get the point here but it does assume that all assistive tech is HTML5-ready, which is unlikely to be the case. The whole idea behind the role attribute is to support WAI-ARIA capable AT. Are we really in a situation where we can afford to drop this yet? Gut instinct says "No" but I'll see if I can wrangle up a wider range of opinions on it.

[sharonaustin]

Please don't drop it. We're finding HTML5 is starting to gain momentum, and are incorporating in our websites here.

[grahamarmfield]

I do think it's too early to drop this ARIA attribute yet. Whilst AT is catching up with HTML5, some AT is not free (eg JAWS) and may not get updated as often as a browser would.

[ceo]

I'll throw my hat in for the "don't drop it" camp as well because of exactly what grahamarmfield noted (emphasis mine):

I do think it's too early to drop this ARIA attribute yet. Whilst AT is catching up with HTML5, some AT is not free (eg JAWS) and may not get updated by the user as often as a browser would.

This is very key. While certainly the norm of software is to be as up-to-date as possible, which is assuming all AT is HTML5 ready anyway (and that's a false assumption) AT users very often are running older versions (and have outdated equipment, at that) because of the extreme cost.

[joedolson]

Definitely need to agree that from an assistive technology perspective, it's too early to drop the ARIA attribute. The reasons mentioned above are all very true - it's a completely nominal gain in terms of code streamlining, but it will remove support for quite a few users of assistive technology. JAWS is not just "not free" -- it's in fact very expensive, and many users will delay upgrading as long as possible.

[lancewillett]

I'd vote to keep it, it isn't harmful or detrimental, and providing support for the older devices is important.