Re: Consensus on longdesc change proposal

Hi Chaals,

On 5/30/11, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 02:50:15 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Laura, for making some of the changes that I suggested.
>>
>> Actually, I want to discuss another question - one that will likely be
>> core to the discussion with Jonas' proposed change proposal.
>>
>> The longdesc change proposal says in the section on "Suggested
>> Alternatives Are Not Viable Solutions" about aria-describedby:
>>
>> "aria-describedby kills off links: ARIA 1.0 specifies that anything
>> that aria-describedby points to is presented to the user as if it
>> occurred inside an attribute. Hence, if aria-describedby points to an
>> element which is - or contains - a link, the link will be completely
>> dead - the AT won't even inform the user about the link presence. "
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/AlternativesAreNotViableSolutions#aria-describedby
>>
>> I believe from recent discussions that ARIA specifies no such thing,
>
> It is ambiguous, but the definition refers to the definition of
> aria-labeledBy which refers to
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/states_and_properties#aria-label
> which states that the value is a string (i.e. not markup)
>
> The definition also states that the reference is an ID reference, which
> (following the white rabbit again until you finally get a statement) means
> *within* the current
> document.

Do you think that anything in the ARIA section [1] of the change
proposal should be reworded to make it clearer? If so, can you suggest
specific verbiage?

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Laura

[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/AlternativesAreNotViableSolutions#aria-describedby
-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 13:27:33 UTC