W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > March 2011

[Bug 12243] Warn when ARIA-describedby/-labelledby points to interactive/form associated content

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:31:50 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Q25Qs-00014J-1q@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #4 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-03-22 17:31:48 UTC ---
 (In reply to comment #2)
> Wouldn't a better fix here be to change ARIA such that pointing
> @aria-labelledby or @aria-describedby at a link should allow the reader to
> follow said link? [...]

* Here you ask for a change of the ARIA feature.

> As comment 0 states, even the people on the HTML WG (me included) made the
> mistake of thinking that this was allowed. Given that the vast majority of the
> documents on the web does not pass a HTML validator without errors, I think we
> can safely assume adding another error to the validation will leave a vast
> majority of documents unaffected. [...]

* It is posible to have the view that "normal" validators shouldn't focus on
ARIA errors *without* simultaneously demanding that ARIA should change how
aria-describedby works.

As for what authors will misunderstand: Why do you believe that authors will,
in particular, misunderstand the fact that links are "dead" whenever they are
referenced via the ARIA-describedby intereface?

The thing is that aria-describedby has the same "issue" with <table> as it has
with <a>. Namely: when the table is presented via the "aria-describedby
interface", then the table is not presented to the user as a table, but as a
plain and simple string.

I think that once authors understand the fact that ARIA very often turns things
into dead text strings, then they are not anymore prone to think that
@aria-describedby works anymore "well" together with links than it works with

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 17:31:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:53 UTC