- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 13:25:14 +0100
- To: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
On 7 April 2014 20:06, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > Should there be a particular need for an accessible name for the <details> > control, ARIA can be used to set the name. But I must admit to not > understanding why you would need that in practice, if the page is well > written. (I find most pages that use accessible labels in situations such > as this tend to be poorly written for non-AT users.) > All controls are expected to have an accessible name and it is expected that the author is able to assign one. this is accessibility 101 across all platforms. Lack of an accessible name or a generic accessible name or an ambiguous accessible name causes issues for users. What's the mechanism by which the anonymous control for details can be assigned an accessible name? Why is avoiding Web components a goal? That's like saying it's unfortunate that nails don't provide enough flexibility to be driven into walls without recourse to a hammer. avoiding unnecessary recourse to web component use is a reasonable and expected goal - built in vs bolt on accessibility is better. Having to use a web component to overcome the inability to make a html control usable without relying on CSS and Js and ARIA is unfortunate, and as you said yesterday "once you're using custom components you've pretty much sacrificed the ability for the web to work without css and js, especially if you don't have a fallback element..." http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20140407#l-396 -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2014 12:26:20 UTC