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

Re: aria-describedat

From: david bolter <david.bolter@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:18:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEO7jQCfQu_ZyA2CgtShseS1w1nO-hs4oES7KQ8S2_DZAZgo7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.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>
Hi all,

If there is increased need for media and visually complex html to have a
URL to something like a transcript or a description, isn't html ready for a
straight-up @hasurl which a browser would expose to everyone?

Cheers,
David

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <
xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:

> 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 Wednesday, 28 March 2012 20:19:43 UTC

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