W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > November 2015

Re: FW: Proposal: remove aria-describedat from the ARIA 1.1 specification

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:57:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vna73cHyqBALoj_jDLc=B328UsejirHkNOCRKQXAAr8sw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Gunderson, Jon R" <jongund@illinois.edu>
Cc: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <public-pfwg@w3.org>, "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
On 13 November 2015 at 15:49, Gunderson, Jon R <jongund@illinois.edu> wrote:

> Steve,
> It seems like we are always finding complicated and indirect ways to show
> important relationships for long descriptions and instructions.
> ARIA doesn’t even define a role=”description” or role=”instructions” even
> though we talk about defining relationships to these concepts all the time
> and WCAG 2.0 defines “description” and “instructions” relationships as
> important for accessibility.
> Just trying to represent the author in these issues in proposing solutions
> that simplifies accessibility for authors.

Hi Jon, talking about this use case how is use of details/summary

I am all for supporting authors, but don't want us to waste time on
speciing new features such as img twisty that I am sure will not get
implementer support.

As far as aria defining new roles, i belive that role=description is
already being discussed.


Current Standards Work @W3C
Received on Friday, 13 November 2015 15:59:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:44:35 UTC