W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > March 2012

Re: aria-describedat

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:28:34 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kBSArYbEaeD-yfNsOAHfSLwZMUZfY-ZexZLuS6mqTFaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, david.bolter@gmail.com, jbrewer@w3.org, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, mike@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
<bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:19 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
> <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
>>> The name should reflect the fact that it is a URL. e.g.
>>> "aria-descriptionurl" or "aria-describeaturl" would be better.
>> If one were to pick @describedaturl, then why not, just as well, change
>> @describedby to @describedBYidrefs ?
> I think "descriptionids" would have been better, but I suspect UAs
> have to implement "aria-describedby" for compatibility with existing
> content.
>> I think @describedat is reasonably good - it fits the current naming pattern.
> I'd welcome a break from the existing pattern of naming things confusingly.
> I don't think minting new names for existing features is prerequisite
> for choosing better names for new features.

Hmm, can we break out completely with something simpler? I was
considering @transcription for video, which would in a long
description transcribe everything that happens in a video (not just
what is being said). Could @transcription work on images? On canvas?

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 01:29:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:56:06 UTC