W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pfwg@w3.org > January 2014

RE: Suggested ARIA state

From: Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:36:04 -0000
To: "'Matthew King'" <mattking@us.ibm.com>, "'W3C WAI Protocols & Formats'" <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004f01cf1de1$c0bd9210$4238b630$@paciellogroup.com>
Matt King wrote:

“That sounds like you assume the most common application is in a wizard context. I actually envision this being used in practically every site navigator on practically every web page on the web. That is, if a set of navigation links has a visual indicator of which one of the links represents the page that is displayed, this state or property should be set for that link.”


No, not at all. I completely agree that one of its primary purposes would be for use within standard site navigation.


“An alternative interpretation is understanding current as "not old or out of date".”


True. My hunch is that if you asked someone to identify the page/step they were on, they’d call it the “current page” though.


“I see the real issue here is that the name of a property in english should not necessarily determine the words used by a screen reader to present it. While it is good to have a useful name so that authors more intuitively understand the purpose, assistive technology developers should still read the definition of the property and come up with their own ways of presenting it.”


Good point. Among the English speaking ATs there is a strong correlation between the name of the attribute and the word(s) used to represent it by screen readers.




“Here is a list of some names I have considered: 


I am not sure I have a favorite.”


Other than aria-current, I think aria-active or aria-nowshowing would be good choices. Would be good ot get some other thoughts/suggestions on this bit!


“We might also want to consider if we want to use this property in tablists and accordians. It may be much more clear than selected and could help us resolve some of the issues with different interaction models. Whether or not it would be mapped differently from selected in all APIs is yet another issue.”


Yes, I think you’re right. I’m not sure how well changing the API mapping would be received though.





The Paciello Group.
Received on Thursday, 30 January 2014 17:36:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:44:59 UTC