[Bug 18744] drop WAI-ARIA scope restriction in the text adopted in ISSUE-204

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18744

James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jcraig@apple.com

--- Comment #25 from James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> 2012-09-10 22:41:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > (In reply to comment #14)
> > > (In reply to comment #9)
> 
> > I think <label for> isn't quite like the other cases. Reasons:
> > 
> > 1) <label> is expected to act as a short label which can be presented directly
> > inline by assistive technologies, rather than a long description. Structure
> > seems less obviously useful for labels than for long descriptions; labels often
> > use intrinsically plain text mechanisms like alt="". I think this is a
> > difference between text a screenreader would present inline, and text that
> > would only be presented specifically on request. In the latter case, it seems
> > more appropriate to potentially use more structure.
> 
> What's your point here? Is it that vendors should not spend energy on exposing
> "full semantics" for <label for> because "plain text semantics" are good
> enough?  If that is what it is, then I wonder: The alternative to not expose
> the "full semantics" of <label for> is, I think, not "plain text semantics" but
> to not pronounce it at all. Isn't that so? (This seems like a difference from
> aria-describedby - where there is indeed a choice between plain text and "full"
> semantics.)

While the typical use of <label> is merely for text labels, I frequently see
labels containing links or other elements. I think the general principle of
exposing content semantics is potentially useful here even for typically simple
elements like <label>.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 22:41:57 UTC