RE: ACTION-1442: Draft spec text for aria-current and aria-currentfor

Yes, I think we should discuss various ways of doing that.

My first question might be how it might map to the accessibility APIs.

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:   Léonie Watson <LWatson@PacielloGroup.com>
To:     Matthew King/Fishkill/IBM@IBMUS, "'Alexander Surkov'" 
<surkov.alexander@gmail.com>, 
Cc:     "'W3C WAI Protocols & Formats'" <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Date:   11/06/2014 02:23 PM
Subject:        RE: ACTION-1442: Draft spec text for aria-current and 
aria-currentfor



Matthew King wrote:
“Should we consider aria-displayed? aria-showing? .... One thing I fear is 
that screen readers will simply say "current" and that in a particular 
context the word "current" does not carry meaning in a particular context 
for the end user.”
 
A while back I suggested making aria-current token based, and defining 
things like aria-current=”page”, aria-current=”step” etc. Worth 
revisiting?
 
Léonie.
 
-- 
Senior Accessibility Engineer, TPG
@LeonieWatson @PacielloGroup