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

If tokens are used, we would need one general value for cases that aren’t readily definable.

From: Alexander Surkov [mailto:surkov.alexander@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 2:55 PM
To: Matthew King
Cc: Léonie Watson; W3C WAI Protocols & Formats
Subject: Re: ACTION-1442: Draft spec text for aria-current and aria-currentfor

I think AT APIs are universal enough to expose an attribute and its string value to AT, but AT has to learn how to handle all those values

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Matthew King <mattking@us.ibm.com<mailto:mattking@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
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<tel:%28503%29%20578-2329>, Tie line: 731-7398
mattking@us.ibm.com<mailto:mattking@us.ibm.com>



From:        Léonie Watson <LWatson@PacielloGroup.com<mailto:LWatson@PacielloGroup.com>>
To:        Matthew King/Fishkill/IBM@IBMUS, "'Alexander Surkov'" <surkov.alexander@gmail.com<mailto:surkov.alexander@gmail.com>>,
Cc:        "'W3C WAI Protocols & Formats'" <public-pfwg@w3.org<mailto: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