ISSUE-671: Re: Mapping @aria-invalid: string versus token value

Raised ISSUE-671: UAIG should expose aria-invalid as token values (as defined per spec), not strings.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/671


On Jul 28, 2014, at 12:29 PM, Matthew King <mattking@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Agree, we should only have string values where the expected behavior is for the AT to speak the string, e.g., aria-label. Otherwise it should be an ID or some enumerated value. 
> 
> Matt King
> IBM Senior Technical Staff Member
> I/T Chief Accessibility Strategist
> IBM BT/CIO - Global Workforce and Web Process Enablement 
> Phone: (503) 578-2329, Tie line: 731-7398
> mattking@us.ibm.com 
> 
> 
> 
> From:        James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> 
> To:        PF <public-pfwg@w3.org>, 
> Cc:        Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu> 
> Date:        07/28/2014 12:03 PM 
> Subject:        Mapping @aria-invalid: string versus token value 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> @aria-invalid is a token value, but as Joseph pointed out today, the UAIG instructs user agents to map string values to the platform APIs. I think this is an error in the UAIG, even if some (or all) of the implementations are doing it. 
>> 
>> Free-form string tokens mean some AT could start providing special behavior for a non-standardized value. For example: JAWS could start using "warning-length" versus NVDA supporting "size-warning" to mean the same thing. I'd like to avoid the inconsistencies of the "browser war" years, so I don't think this possibility should exist.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
> 
> 

Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 03:35:00 UTC