- From: James Teh <jamie@nvaccess.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:33:31 +1000
- To: Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>
- Cc: IA2 List <Accessibility-ia2@lists.linux-foundation.org>, ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org>
On 2/03/2016 12:13 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote: >> If you really do want errormessage to be treated as an entirely >> separate thing, then I have to change my position on this: we need a >> new relation and new events. > Really? Why can't we map it via described-by/description-for and then > use an object attribute to check if the descriptive element is an object > attribute? Everyone else is saying that errormessage is inherently different to description. If that really is how it's meant to be according to the ARIA spec (I disagree, but that's not relevant here), then mapping it to description (even with an attribute) is a big hack. You can't have it both ways; it's either just a specialisation of description or it's not. Several people now say it's not the former, so it must be the latter. And if it *is* the former, then it should be included as part of the description text as well. FWIW, I don't like this whle thing at all, but it seems wrong to me that the ARIA spec says it's not at all a description and the a11y specs say it is. Personally, I think the ARIA spec *should* treat it as just an extension of description, but I've already made that point and it doesn't seem popular. Jamie -- James Teh Executive Director, NV Access Limited Ph +61 7 3149 3306 www.nvaccess.org Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess Twitter: @NVAccess SIP: jamie@nvaccess.org
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2016 23:33:41 UTC