How common is the use case or extended descriptions on non-images? Is it something we need to solve right now, or could it wait for ARIA 2.0? I’m still not convinced that we need something other than aria-describedby here. The difference between describedby and describedat is that describedby points to something the page and describedat points to a URL. Describedat is just like longdesc when used on an image. When pointing to something in the page, is it really true that we need 3 separate strings? How common is it for content to have all 3? Name (AAPI property only) Description (AAPI property and referenced object) Extended description (referenced object only) From: ahby@aptest.com [mailto:ahby@aptest.com] On Behalf Of Shane McCarron Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 8:38 AM To: Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org> Cc: Gunderson, Jon R <jongund@illinois.edu>; Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>; Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>; Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>; W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>; public-digipub-ig@w3.org Subject: Re: Proposal: remove aria-describedat from the ARIA 1.1 specification On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org<mailto:charlesl@benetech.org>> wrote: This issue for extended external descriptions is not only an issue for Images, but will be used on any web element potentially (tables for a simple example). This is actually a super important point. In the ARIA call yesterday we were asking if this was only related to images. If it is not... then I don't know that anything we have been discussing is really general purpose except the summary / details relationship that we are discussing right now. -- Shane McCarron Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Received on Friday, 13 November 2015 17:48:33 UTC