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

That sounds fine for a custom design.



I do wish to point out that the checkbox triggers dialog is a common paradigm that has been around for many years however

https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=checkbox+that+opens+dialog&oq=checkbox+that+opens+dialog&gs_l=hp.3..33i21l2.3206.11374.0.11736.33.30.2.1.1.0.198.3257.9j21.30.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..0.23.2607.0.rr7M8kdIOdY


So it would be nice if we could all agree on a specific design pattern for dealing with this.







-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:richschwer@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 9:59 AM
To: Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>
Cc: Stefan Schnabel <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>; Birkir Gunnarsson <birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com>; James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>; public-aria@w3.org
Subject: Re: Why is aria-expanded invalid with a checkbox?



I see. So that can be done in a number of ways:



- A live region with an aria-describedby that points to it from the control. Content would be triggered upon focus change. ( I like this as it can be changed and the user is guaranteed to be notified)

- A confirmation popup when a form is submitted. There may be multiple form elements that require a notification to the user.



Rich



> On Feb 3, 2016, at 11:28 AM, Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>> wrote:

>

> I understand this in most cases, and if the group decides this is the best way to go, that's fine with me.

>

> However I do need to explain the situation, because the circumstance I'm referring to was more unique, in that the client is a financial institution that was sued because it did not adiquatly convey to non-sighted screen reader users that the checking of a particular checkbox would significantly impact there accounts, even though this was conveyed visually using CSS for sighted users.

>

> So the legal design requirements were then mandated that it must convey that something else was going to happen when this checkbox was checked.

>

> As I said, if the group decides this association is not important, I'll refer them to this thread in the future to explain why.

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:richschwer@gmail.com]

> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 9:06 AM

> To: Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>>

> Cc: Stefan Schnabel <stefan.schnabel@sap.com<mailto:stefan.schnabel@sap.com>>; Birkir Gunnarsson

> <birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com<mailto:birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com>>; James Nurthen

> <james.nurthen@oracle.com<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>>; public-aria@w3.org<mailto:public-aria@w3.org>

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

>

> In this case even the sighted user does not know that is what is going to happen. This is just a confirmation. There is no reason to have to indicate that it has a popup.

>

> So, what happens:

>

> a dialog gets generated

> an AT gets notified that a dialog was generated Focus moves to the dialog box. The AT reads the dialog and the description if coded right.

>

> This is far different from a drop down menu where you have a button with a drop down that you need to operate to make a choice. The user will have a visual indication that the button has a dropdown (like a visible down arrow). That is not the case with a confirmation dialog.

>

> … sorry, no reason to have a popup on that.

>

> Rich

>

>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>> wrote:

>>

>> A devil's advocate question, what happens if you have a checkbox that when checked, opens a confirmation dialog?

>>

>> This is a real world example, for a legal requirement of a client, where checking the checkbox involved important ramifications that needed to be conveyed to the user.

>>

>> Technically the two actions are separate, the checking of the checkbox, which is either true or false, and the expantion of a content layer that must be associated to convey the importance of understanding this action.

>>

>> How should these be linked? The use of aria-controls is not reliable, aria-owns is not valid.

>>

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: Rich Schwerdtfeger [mailto:richschwer@gmail.com]

>> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 4:01 AM

>> To: Schnabel, Stefan <stefan.schnabel@sap.com<mailto:stefan.schnabel@sap.com>>

>> Cc: Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>>; Birkir

>> Gunnarsson <birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com<mailto:birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com>>; James Nurthen

>> <james.nurthen@oracle.com<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>>; public-aria@w3.org<mailto:public-aria@w3.org>

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

>>

>> 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.

>>

>> Rich

>>

>> Sent from my iPad

>>

>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 1:42 AM, Schnabel, Stefan <stefan.schnabel@sap.com<mailto: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<mailto:birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com>>; James Nurthen

>>> <james.nurthen@oracle.com<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>>

>>> Cc: public-aria@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>>

>>> Cc: public-aria@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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

>>>

>