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

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Mapping of aria-errormessage for ATK/AT-SPI2 and IA2

From: James Teh <jamie@nvaccess.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:33:31 +1000
To: Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>
Cc: IA2 List <Accessibility-ia2@lists.linux-foundation.org>, ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56D626CB.3060705@nvaccess.org>
On 2/03/2016 12:13 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
>> If you really do want errormessage to be treated as an entirely
>> separate thing, then I have to change my position on this: we need a
>> new relation and new events.
> Really? Why can't we map it via described-by/description-for and then
> use an object attribute to check if the descriptive element is an object
> attribute?
Everyone else is saying that errormessage is inherently different to 
description. If that really is how it's meant to be according to the 
ARIA spec (I disagree, but that's not relevant here), then mapping it to 
description (even with an attribute) is a big hack. You can't have it 
both ways; it's either just a specialisation of description or it's not. 
Several people now say it's not the former, so it must be the latter. 
And if it *is* the former, then it should be included as part of the 
description text as well.

FWIW, I don't like this whle thing at all, but it seems wrong to me that 
the ARIA spec says it's not at all a description and the a11y specs say 
it is. Personally, I think the ARIA spec *should* treat it as just an 
extension of description, but I've already made that point and it 
doesn't seem popular.

Jamie

-- 
James Teh
Executive Director, NV Access Limited
Ph +61 7 3149 3306
www.nvaccess.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess
Twitter: @NVAccess
SIP: jamie@nvaccess.org
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2016 23:33:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:58:22 UTC