Re: ACTION-1442: Draft spec text for aria-current and aria-currentfor from Dominic Mazzoni on 2014-11-26 (public-pfwg@w3.org from November 2014)

From: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 11:00:56 -0800
To: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>, "LWatson@PacielloGroup.com" <LWatson@paciellogroup.com>, Matthew King <mattking@us.ibm.com>, Joanie Diggs <diggs@igalia.com>, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>, "Gunderson, Jon R" <jongund@illinois.edu>, "public-pfwg@w3.org" <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAFz-FYyB-eihH6zh7mzBH7RixD8_8akLZrGYp8s6d3s=qUas7A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
wrote:

> The example I gave using site navigation applies:
> http://idrc.ocad.ca/index.php/research-and-development/ongoing-projects.
> The site index can be navigated using up/down arrow keys, moving focus from
> link to link, but the "you-are-here" link doesn't change.  Thus, "focus" is
> independent of "current" in the same container.
>

This really feels like "selected" to me. Can you explain why you feel
aria-selected would be a poor choice here, or a case where aria-current
would be different than aria-selected?

Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 19:01:25 UTC