Re: ACTION-2107: Precedence of aria-details over aria-describedby

Hi Rich,

I think both you and Matt are essentially agreeing, however I'm with Matt
in that I'd support a *minor* editorial change here, from:
     "When both aria-describedby and aria-details are provided on an
element aria-details takes precedence."

...to
     "When both aria-describedby and aria-details are provided on an
element aria-details <ins>MUST</ins>take precedence."

How complicated is it to make this editorial change, and is there support
for that within the Working Group?

Thanks!

JF

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The text stated precedence, meaning that if both were provided one was
> chosen for the description. That text is in a normative part of the text.
> There was no statement that it MAY or SHOULD take precedence. It is black
> and white.
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 15, 2016, at 9:26 PM, Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Rich, if we do not put a normative statement for user agents in, then what
> would be the basis for following through with that in the AAM?
>
>
>
> *If that is the meaning of the text then we need something like:*
>
>
>
> *If both aria-describedby and aria-details are provided on the same
> element, user agents MUST ignore the value of aria-describedby and expose
> only the value of aria-details.*
>
>
>
> *Matt*
>
>
>
> *From:* Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:richschwer@gmail.com
> <richschwer@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 15, 2016 7:42 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
>
>
>
> Matt,
>
>
>
> In the mappings we should suppress aria-describedby relationship mappings
> in favor of aria-details. That would also mean that aria-describedby
> content would not be converted to a string description.
>
>
>
> It is also possible that some mapping systems may reuse aria-describedby
> relationships and in those cases aria-details must win. From an author’s
> perspective that is very detailed low level information that will be system
> dependent.
>
>
>
> We foresaw that some platforms may reuse the same underlying linking
> (relationship) mechanism.
>
>
>
> There must be only one description. The authoring practices should make
> should tell authors that only one description is allowed and that details
> takes precedence.
>
>
>
> If you want to write in the spec. that when aria-details and
> aria-describedby are provided on the same element the aria-describedby
> relationship will not be exposed to the AT that is fine for a
> clarification.
>
>
>
> Rich
>
> On Aug 14, 2016, at 10:22 PM, Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Rich,
>
>
>
> I was out of the office during the recent discussion of aria-details.
> However, I did respond to the CFC regarding the normative changes with
> comments. Unfortunately, I was unexpectedly away again when the discussion
> of the CFC occurred and during which my comments led to action 2107.
>
>
>
> I am not asking for a normative change in meaning because I don’t know the
> meaning of what is written. If you, or anyone else, can provide an
> explanation of how the precedence is created, enforced, or otherwise
> manifest, then I can complete the action of modifying the text to make it
> more understandable.
>
>
>
> Is it possible that the group had discussed a precedence requirement but
> not actually made a decision of how it should be implemented? Could that be
> why there is not a normative statement placing a precedence requirement on
> either browsers or assistive technologies?
>
>
>
> If there is not a normative implementation requirement, then removing the
> precedence statement is editorial. Birkir made an argument for not having a
> precedence requirement, and his rationale seems reasonable to me. But,
> again, I am making this judgment without having any understanding of the
> language stating there is a precedence.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* Rich Schwerdtfeger [mailto:richschwer@gmail.com
> <richschwer@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 14, 2016 7:49 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
>
>
>
> Ok. Now, I am having a serious problem. This was supposed to have been
> reviewed by the group and that includes you. It also went out for 7 day
> CFC. Where were you?
>
>
>
> Stating precedence is a normative statement. Do you think it is a nice to
> have?
>
>
>
> One of the problems I am now having with your comments is that if neither
> has precedence we have an overload of mechanisms a user must deal with to
> get help information.
>
>
>
> We need to have authors make a choice. The preference should be for
> everyone to be able to access the information and not the 1% of the users
> with an AT.
>
>
>
> Remember this was put in to help digital publishers which is targeting all
> users.
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2016, at 8:23 PM, 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
> <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> 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
>
>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion