- From: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:21:20 -0400
- To: Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>, Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>, ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org>
On 2016-04-28 11:57 AM, Bryan Garaventa wrote:
> Currently the only option listed in this section is the use of aria-owns, which is problematic in this case.
The text states for this special case that "... the element referenced
by aria-activedescendant is not in fact a descendant ...". This is the
most general way of stating the problem. Using aria-controls does *not*
solve *this* problem.
The only thing relevant here is that there is a case where
aria-activedescendant does not actually reference a descendant, but it
nonetheless works. That is all the needs to be documented in the
aria-activedescendant section.
> I believe one of the original proposals too was to allow the use of aria-controls as well in special cases when an explicit association is needed, such as when a text field is focused and includes role=combobox, but references another node such as role=option via aria-activedescendant.
You are correct about the use of aria-controls with comboboxes. But,
that is fully documented in the combobox role section with Matt's new
text. I don't see the point of reiterating that in the
aria-activedescendant specification.
--
;;;;joseph.
'Die Wahrheit ist Irgendwo da Draußen. Wieder.'
- C. Carter -
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2016 16:21:45 UTC