Re: Why is aria-expanded invalid with a checkbox?

I'd have thought that checked in combination with aria-controls was 
enough here.
Unless the checked and expanded state can be different (which I don't 
believe they could be) I would just use checked and aria-controls.

On 2/2/2016 2:58 PM, Birkir Gunnarsson wrote:
> Oh wise ones.
>
> I am working with a team that is implementing a form where checking a
> check box expands a section further down the page.
> They actually thought of putting aria-expanded and aria-controls on
> the check box to communicate this info to assistive technologies.
> I had to stop the because checkbox role is not one of the 40 or so
> roles that allow the aria-expanded property.
>
>
> I find this curious.
> The situation I described, where sections of a dynamic form or webpage
> are displayed or hidden in response to user checking or unchecking a
> check box is quite common.
> Sure, if the section of the page is, in content order, after the
> checkbox that controls it, users do not necessarily need to be aware
> of the change, but it is a very smart usability decision to inform the
> user that checking a checkbox affects contents elsewhere on the
> webpage.
> My questions are:
> 1. Why was aria-expanded not considered a valid attribute with check boxes and,
> 2. Can this case be revisited? If so I'd be happy to create an issue
> ticket if necessary.
> Thanks
> -Birkir
>
>

-- 
Regards, James

Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 987 
1918 <tel:+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video: james.nurthen@oracle.com 
<sip:james.nurthen@oracle.com>
Oracle Corporate Architecture
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood Cty, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment