Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One thing I consistently dislike in these efforts is the misappropriation of HTML tags with certain semantics. As a counterpoint, I don't understand people pushing strict semantics in html elements where they're not really strictly defined or generally useful. Because of how loose the spec with how these things can be used (it it weren't it'd be like schema.org meets html) scraper and other UI tools don't really lo…
> Besides general accessibility (which is tag attribute based mostly) I was under the impression that semantic html elements imply certain aria tags (I read some mdn pages on this recently so I'm pretty confident in this impression, unless I confused proposed and actual specs). So, they can help with the ease of writing accessible UI.
Some roles inherent to HTML elements are only conditionally exposed; e.g. the element has the ARIA landmark role of "region" but assistive technologies that list landmarks should not include such section elements unless it has also been given an accessible name, e.g. Contact Info ... . I've read that the element is not really an ARIA "complementary" landmark if it's the child of another landmark but in practice it still seems to be treated that way.