RE: Significant ambiguities in aria-roledescription

Given yesterday's discussion, I think that is worthy of consideration.  But, it is not editorial so you open the debate of whether it can be done after last call.

It would mean both adding text and enhancing the examples.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joanmarie Diggs [mailto:jdiggs@igalia.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2016 4:33 PM
To: Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com>
Cc: 'ARIA Working Group' <public-aria@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Significant ambiguities in aria-roledescription

Hey Matt.

As long as we're adding restrictions, I think we should also require an accessible name. We want to dissuade authors from putting things in aria-roledescription that really belong in aria-label (or alt, or ...).

--joanie

On 07/08/2016 04:18 PM, Matt King wrote:
> Léonie, Bryan,
> 
> I tried to address the ambiguities you are concerned about when working on action 2092. I replaced the non-normative "are only recommended for use" note with an "authors SHOULD." The following language is included in both of the drafts we are voting on in the CFC.
> 
> "The aria-roledescription property gives authors the ability to override how assistive technologies localize and express the name of a role. Thus, inappropriately using aria-roledescription may inhibit users' ability to understand or interact with an element. Authors SHOULD limit use of aria-roledescription to clarifying the purpose of non-interactive container roles like group or region or to providing a more specific description of a widget."
> 
> This paragraph is a strong foundation on which the authoring practices guide can build. I think it should cause any authors reading the spec to seriously consider how they are using the property. It also clarifies the meaning of "description".
> 
> Mattt
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Garaventa [mailto:bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 8:40 AM
> To: tink@tink.uk; Schnabel, Stefan <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>; Richard 
> Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>; White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
> Cc: Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com>; ARIA Working Group 
> <public-aria@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: Significant ambiguities in aria-roledescription
> 
> I have to agree, that's going to be misused everywhere.
> 
> 
> Bryan Garaventa
> Accessibility Fellow
> SSB BART Group, Inc.
> bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com
> 415.624.2709 (o)
> www.SSBBartGroup.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Léonie Watson [mailto:tink@tink.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 8:32 AM
> To: Schnabel, Stefan <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>; Richard Schwerdtfeger 
> <richschwer@gmail.com>; White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
> Cc: Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com>; ARIA Working Group 
> <public-aria@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Significant ambiguities in aria-roledescription
> 
> On 07/07/2016 16:01, Schnabel, Stefan wrote:
>> Hi Leonie,
>>
>>>>> The spec recommends using the attribute only on non-interactive containers ...
>>
>> see http://w3c.github.io/aria/aria/aria.html#aria-roledescription
>>
>> No word about only structural roles in latest draft.
> 
> 
> The warning is in the note included after the definition. Here's the text:
> 
> "Users of
> assistive technologies
>   learn interaction patterns based on localized role descriptions such as "button" or "slider." When authors change the role description, users may no longer understand the purpose of the control or how to interact with it. Thus custom role descriptions are only recommended for use on non-interactive container roles like group
>   or
> region
>   or to provide a more specific description of a widget."
> 
> 
> Léonie.
> 
> 
> --
> @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 8 July 2016 23:59:15 UTC