- From: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 09:40:37 -0500
- To: Birkir Gunnarsson <birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com>
- Cc: Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com>, ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org>
We are not specifying the AT user experience. Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 13, 2016, at 10:14 PM, Birkir Gunnarsson <birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com> wrote: > > Agree with Matt, the language is confusing here. > The 1.1 entry for aria-details says that: "....as it is expected that > the assistive technology user navigate to the content to access it. " > So it sounds that assistive technology should expose the presence of > the aria-detailed element to the user and offer users a way to > navigate directly to it. > A.T. should not automatically announce the contents of the > aria-details element, as that would flatten the element to a string. > > I don't see how that clashes with or replaces the element's accessible > description as provided by aria-describedby, nor do I see a specific > reason why assistive technology should not expose the accessible > description if the details attribute is present. > > Imagine an graph based on a table. > The image for the graph could have aria-details element pointing to > the table element and an aria-describedby referencing an element > (possibly hidden off-screen) containing a description of the major > visual characteristics of the graph. > > When the user moves focus to the graph, they should hear its > accessible name (perhaps provided by the alt attribute), the > accessible description, and instructions on getting to the > aria-details target element. > > Leaving out the accessible description in this scenario can be harmful > to screen reader users. > > The solution seems simple, drop this sentence and let aria-describedby > and aria-detail coexist. They really are not competing with each > other. > > Cheers > -Birkir > > > > > > > > >> On 8/13/16, Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com> wrote: >> Rich, >> >> >> >> The statement about precedence does not include any normative language. >> And, >> I still do not understand what it means. >> >> >> >> If both aria-describedby and aria-details are specified on the same >> element, >> is either the user agent or assistive technology supposed to do something >> special? If either or both are supposed to do something, what is it that >> they do? >> >> >> >> Matt >> >> >> >> From: Rich Schwerdtfeger [mailto:richschwer@gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2016 9:22 AM >> To: Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com> >> Cc: ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: ACTION-2107: Precedence of aria-details over aria-describedby >> >> >> >> That is true. However, we did not see the need for multiple descriptions. >> Also, if you change that it would be a normative change. >> >> >> >> Since both define a description, the reason for the precedence is that >> authors can hide aria-details content where they are not allowed to with >> aria-details - meaning it is accessible to everyone and not just AT users. >> aria-details is intended to be shown. >> >> >> >> Rich >> >> >> >> Rich Schwerdtfeger >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 12, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com >> <mailto:a11ythinker@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> >> >> WRT completing ACTION-2107, Make editorial changes to aria-details, I have >> one question. >> >> >> >> What is the intended meaning of the following sentence from the >> aria-details >> specification? >> >> "When both aria-describedby and aria-details are provided on an element >> aria-details takes precedence." >> >> >> >> Since aria-details is not part of the name and description calculation, it >> clearly does not refer to precedence in that calculation. Does it refer to >> a >> user agent behavior? If not, whose is responsible for creating the >> precedence, and how is that precedence manifest? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> matt > > > -- > Birkir Gunnarsson, CPACC > Senior Accessibility Subject Matter Expert | Deque Systems > 2121 Cooperative Way, Suite 210 > Herndon, VA, 20171 > > Ph: (919) 607-27 53 > Twitter: @birkir_gun
Received on Sunday, 14 August 2016 14:41:06 UTC