W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > September 2013

[Bug 23377] ARIA: Strong Native Semantics table should defined implicit non-required state on form elements (Currently defines required state, but not the implicit inverse)

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 08:19:41 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-23377-3290-0zGlHmVqHE@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23377

--- Comment #6 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to James Craig from comment #4)
> (In reply to steve faulkner from comment #2)
> 
> > I think there are legitimate use cases for allowing aria-required on
> > elements without the required attribute.
> > 
> > It is common practice to have a a control that is marked as required in text
> > for example using an asterisk:
> > 
> > <label>name * <input></label>
> > 
> > It is not a requirement in HTML5 that this pattern must use the required
> > attribute to mark the control as required, and there are reasons why an
> > author may not want to use the required attribute such as they do not want
> > the associated UI and behaviour that is implemented by some user agents for
> > the required attribute. Thus in the example above providing the author with
> > the means to convey the required state to acc APIs via aria-required will
> > improve the accessibility of the pattern.
> 
> I could accept the behavior you want, but as it's written in the spec, it
> conflicts with itself because @required is a Boolean attribute. You need to
> make either one of these changes:
> 
> 1. Either define the "false" state of @required in the Strong Native
> Semantics table, where you currently have only the "true" state. (This would
> effectively mean @aria-required had no effect on form elements that accept
> @required.)
> 
> 2. Move all the mentioned of @required and @aria-required from the Strong
> Native Semantics table to the implicit ARIA semantics. (This would allow the
> behavior you appear to desire and have outlined above.)

Hi james,

> I could accept the behavior you want

Do you consider the use case i outlined is reasonable? 

I will follow you advice and move into implicit only table, but will keep
restraint that when required is present aria-required, if specified, must be
set to true. Sound OK?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 28 September 2013 08:19:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:35 UTC