- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:25:01 +0100
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, david.bolter@gmail.com, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, jbrewer@w3.org, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, mike@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Silvia Pfeiffer, Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:25:09 +1100: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Charles McCathieNevile: >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:54:07 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli: >>> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis, Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:28:11 +0000: >>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Charles McCathieNevile: >>>> It might (?) make sense to restrict the HTML or ARIA semantics that >>>> conformingly act as description fragments so as to exclude headings. >>> >>> I think we 'just' need to say what authors *MUST* do: point to an >>> existing fragment. And then, if they point to an non-existing fragment, >>> then - in fact - per the way browsers handle it, the entire page would >>> be in scope, no? >> >> Sure. But some authors, whatever we say, will point to the h3 element and >> not realise that it doesn't include the following stuff that is the >> description they worked so hard on. I always like Benjamin's proposal much better the second time I read them .. :-D So, hm, it might not be so bad to exclude headings the way he suggested. >> I am prepared to live with a certain failure rate in order to make an >> improvement, but it is worth trying to maximise the benefit and so worth >> thinking about how things will go wrong when people are trying to do the >> right thing. Indeed. But it seems Silvia's proposal about a simple way for authors to test it, is the best way to solve that: > If the browsers provide a way to visually display the description - > e.g. in an overlay - then the authors can check the result of their > work for themselves. > > I would also suggest that a link to an element would just display the > page fragment rooted at that element. If an author wants to include > more than that, then they would put a div or p or so around the set of > elements that they want to link to and reference that. It won't break > HTML or fragment URIs. It's just a semantic of this attribute. Just one thing to you all: We need to think at @aria-describedAT and @longdesc in tandem. Or else I think that one of them will fail. Which makes me think about another thing: Rich, may I propose that you somewhere in your draft define that that AT can use native attributes if aria-describedAT is not present? -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 22:25:54 UTC