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: Gunderson, Jon R <jongund@illinois.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 16:50:30 +0000
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
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>
Message-ID: <46739F12637CC94E82F75FF874E4A1473B7DB2B3@CITESMBX6.ad.uillinois.edu>

The details/summary may seem simple to us, but to many people it will be hard, especially people using WYSISWYG editors which will not support the technique or any of the other techniques being proposed.

The other issues are that this will not be the only or maybe even the preferred technique (if there ever is one), there will be many others like figure/caption or some type of flowto/bi-directional linking, …..

This will make the user experience much less consistent and authors will now be confused on which technique is best for their situation.

Inconsistent experiences for users is something authors typically try to avoid and when authors are confused they often will not do nothing.

Accessibility evaluation and inspection tools will have little hope in identifying long description content, since there is no easy way to identify it.


From: Steve Faulkner [mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 9:58 AM
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
Subject: Re: FW: Proposal: remove aria-describedat from the ARIA 1.1 specification

On 13 November 2015 at 15:49, Gunderson, Jon R <jongund@illinois.edu<mailto:jongund@illinois.edu>> wrote:

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 overcomplicating?
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.paciellogroup.com_blog_2015_03_current-2Dstandards-2Dwork-2Dat-2Dw3c_&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=REZD8fc2AwufInstfW3L5jSLVS8bjZtAodDOhat7yAI&m=XuIC3P-kQGM1GletjGe4QLrtTnvXuaapDiPI7IKu-Ec&s=b7U3ZtPr67YzETiv9MkHiLWcwMHAY2m8QifPUY9MPMk&e=>
Received on Friday, 13 November 2015 16:52:22 UTC

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