- From: Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 11:20:03 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- cc: DPUB-ARIA <public-dpub-aria@w3.org>, WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1511051115300.5128@DKaplan.safarijv.com>
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > > You could link it via aria-describedby to whatever you are describing. This way you have an explicit extended description. But aria-describedby is for non-extended descriptions, standard descriptions that can't be associated with standard controls. Admittedly the formal description of the element is ambiguous, in that it explicitly clarifies that a description is more verbose than a label, but currently all AT (I believe) treats aria-describedby as a non-extended description which should be placed in the normal flow and not reported as special. Is the proposal that aria-describedby should always mean extended descriptions, and anything which is less verbose than an extended description belongs in a label? If that's the case, the formal definition of aria-describedby will need to be clarified, and screenreader manufacturers will need to be asked to change the behavior accordingly (e.g. to treat aria-describedby like longdesc, not like aria-labelledby). Deborah Kaplan > > Rich Schwerdtfeger > > Inactive hide details for Deborah Kaplan ---11/05/2015 10:07:45 AM---On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > but I b Deborah > Kaplan ---11/05/2015 10:07:45 AM---On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > but I believe this addresses the requirements of > > From: Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com> > To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>, DPUB-ARIA <public-dpub-aria@w3.org> > Date: 11/05/2015 10:07 AM > Subject: Re: Proposal: remove aria-describedat from the ARIA 1.1 specification > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > > > but I believe this addresses the requirements of > > the digital publishing industry. > > One of our biggest concerns was that this extended description be > something that could be semantically identified AS an extended > description. Was this addressed in discussions at TPAC? Based on the > email that has gone by, I have not seen anything that will distinguish > extended descriptions in <details> elements from anything else in a > <details> element. > > Deborah Kaplan > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 5 November 2015 16:20:45 UTC