RE: Significant ambiguities in aria-roledescription

Thanks, I missed that. 

Well I feel the entire section needs some editorial rewriting to clearly limit this to a set of named roles listed in one instance.

You cannot say "all in the beginning" ,, then recommend "some" and finish this section with "all" in a table. 

We should better do some clean up here.

Best Regards
Stefan

-----Original Message-----
From: Léonie Watson [mailto:tink@tink.uk] 
Sent: Donnerstag, 7. Juli 2016 17:32
To: Schnabel, Stefan <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>; Richard Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>; White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com>; ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Significant ambiguities in aria-roledescription

On 07/07/2016 16:01, Schnabel, Stefan wrote:
> Hi Leonie,
>
>>>> The spec recommends using the attribute only on non-interactive containers ...
>
> see http://w3c.github.io/aria/aria/aria.html#aria-roledescription

>
> No word about only structural roles in latest draft.


The warning is in the note included after the definition. Here's the text:

"Users of
assistive technologies
  learn interaction patterns based on localized role descriptions such 
as "button" or "slider." When authors change the role description, users 
may no longer
understand the purpose of the control or how to interact with it. Thus 
custom role descriptions are only recommended for use on non-interactive 
container
roles like
group
  or
region
  or to provide a more specific description of a
widget."


Léonie.


-- 
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

Received on Thursday, 7 July 2016 16:25:54 UTC