W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-aria@w3.org > February 2016

Re: Why is aria-expanded invalid with a checkbox?

From: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 06:01:24 -0600
Cc: Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>, Birkir Gunnarsson <birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com>, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>, "public-aria@w3.org" <public-aria@w3.org>
Message-Id: <32334885-82AF-4C2C-8275-79A6DB183502@gmail.com>
To: "Schnabel, Stefan" <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>
No way would I want an expandable checkbox. It should fail a validator.

Browsers let things like this pass because it is too expensive to correct every possible poorly coded web page. They need to try to be performant. This is a validator issue.


Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 3, 2016, at 1:42 AM, Schnabel, Stefan <stefan.schnabel@sap.com> wrote:
> To be used in which pattern? Collapse/Expand of regions?
> Regards
> Stefan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Garaventa [mailto:bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com] 
> Sent: Mittwoch, 3. Februar 2016 00:39
> To: Birkir Gunnarsson <birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com>; James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
> Cc: public-aria@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Why is aria-expanded invalid with a checkbox?
> I vote we just add this role to the spec, it already works.
> E.G
> <input type="checkbox" aria-expanded="true" title="Test" />
> This already sets the 'expanded' state in IE11, Firefox, and Chrome in the accessibility tree.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Birkir Gunnarsson [mailto:birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 3:27 PM
> To: James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
> Cc: public-aria@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Why is aria-expanded invalid with a checkbox?
> As a screen reader, if I move to a checkbox and hear:
> "I hold a non immigrant visa, checkbox not checked collapsed"
> (<input type="checkbox" aria-expanded="false" aria-controls="niv"> <div role="region" aria-label="None Immigrant Visa information" id="niv">
> ...
> </div>
> I would know that checking that checkbox will cause additional content to appear.
> You are right that aria-controls hints at the same thing, but it is not necessarily tied to the display of a section of content.
> It could be a submit button that becomes enabled only after I check the checkbox.
> It could also be a section that is already visible on the page but checking the checkbox automatically changes default UI element settings.
> the use of aria-expanded would clearly tell me that a section of the page will be expanded or collapsed as a result of me interacting with the checkbox, the non-visual equivalent of seeing content appear and disappear.
> I am just perplexed why aria-expanded is allowed on so many roles, (I have some difficulty seeing the use cases for some of them), but not on a check box.
> Cheers
>> On 2/2/16, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com> wrote:
>> I'd have thought that checked in combination with aria-controls was 
>> enough here.
>> Unless the checked and expanded state can be different (which I don't 
>> believe they could be) I would just use checked and aria-controls.
>>> On 2/2/2016 2:58 PM, Birkir Gunnarsson wrote:
>>> Oh wise ones.
>>> I am working with a team that is implementing a form where checking a 
>>> check box expands a section further down the page.
>>> They actually thought of putting aria-expanded and aria-controls on 
>>> the check box to communicate this info to assistive technologies.
>>> I had to stop the because checkbox role is not one of the 40 or so 
>>> roles that allow the aria-expanded property.
>>> I find this curious.
>>> The situation I described, where sections of a dynamic form or 
>>> webpage are displayed or hidden in response to user checking or 
>>> unchecking a check box is quite common.
>>> Sure, if the section of the page is, in content order, after the 
>>> checkbox that controls it, users do not necessarily need to be aware 
>>> of the change, but it is a very smart usability decision to inform 
>>> the user that checking a checkbox affects contents elsewhere on the 
>>> webpage.
>>> My questions are:
>>> 1. Why was aria-expanded not considered a valid attribute with check 
>>> boxes and, 2. Can this case be revisited? If so I'd be happy to 
>>> create an issue ticket if necessary.
>>> Thanks
>>> -Birkir
>> --
>> Regards, James
>> Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
>> James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
>> Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 
>> 987
>> 1918 <tel:+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video: james.nurthen@oracle.com 
>> <sip:james.nurthen@oracle.com> Oracle Corporate Architecture
>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood Cty, CA 94065 Green Oracle 
>> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing 
>> practices and products that help protect the environment
> --
> Birkir R. Gunnarsson
> 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 Wednesday, 3 February 2016 12:01:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:23:19 UTC