RE: Proposal: simple annotation semantics with aria-detailstype

Can we have more mockup examples for this in use, please? Given that, one can detect possible caveats and pitfalls easier.

Regards
Stefan


From: Aaron Leventhal [mailto:aleventhal@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:26 PM
To: ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org>
Subject: Proposal: simple annotation semantics with aria-detailstype

People on the W3C call today weren't too sure about using the role on the target of aria-details, in order to specify the type of annotation. Here's an alternate proposal:

Use aria-details + optional aria-detailstype on the same element with one of the following values:
assessing, classifying, commenting, describing (default), editing, highlighting, identifying, linking, moderating, questioning, replying, tagging
These values are imported from web annotations motivation vocabulary, but ARIA can eventually add additional types such as "breakpoint" for web-based code editors.

This is still very simple to implement in browsers, AAM's and AT's. It also doesn't lead to an expansion of roles, and is more self-describing than using the role, which probably seems like ARIA black magic that only a few would know about.

Do people like it?

Aaron