Re: Proposal: remove aria-describedat from the ARIA 1.1 specification

Deborah,

That was not clear to people in the dub discussions we had at TPAC.
aria-describedat does not solve that either.

So you want a description AND an extended description. ... or is it that
you want to have a description that can reside at a different location than
what is in the page?

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger



From:	Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com>
To:	Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc:	Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, DPUB-ARIA
            <public-dpub-aria@w3.org>, WAI Protocols & Formats
            <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Date:	11/05/2015 11:04 AM
Subject:	Re: Proposal: remove aria-describedat from the ARIA 1.1
            specification



What the digital publishing industry was requesting in this particular
case was a single mechanism for extended descriptions which always means
extended description, and only means extended description.

Deborah Kaplan

On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Steve Faulkner wrote:

> arai-flowto is another mechanism that could be used to provide a
relationship between content and description
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#aria-flowto
>
> --
>
> Regards
>
> SteveF
> Current Standards Work @W3C
>
> On 5 November 2015 at 16:20, Deborah Kaplan
<dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com> wrote:
>       On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>
>
>             You could link it via aria-describedby to whatever you are
describing.  This way you have an explicit extended
>             description.
>
>
>       But aria-describedby is for non-extended descriptions, standard
>       descriptions that can't be associated with standard controls.
Admittedly
>       the formal description of the element is ambiguous, in that it
>       explicitly clarifies that a description is more verbose than a
label,
>       but currently all AT (I believe) treats aria-describedby as a
>       non-extended description which should be placed in the normal flow
and
>       not reported as special. Is the proposal that aria-describedby
should
>       always mean extended descriptions, and anything which is less
verbose
>       than an extended description belongs in a label? If that's the
case, the
>       formal definition of aria-describedby will need to be clarified,
and
>       screenreader manufacturers will need to be asked to change the
behavior
>       accordingly (e.g. to treat aria-describedby like longdesc, not like
>       aria-labelledby).
>
>       Deborah Kaplan
>
>             Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>             Inactive hide details for Deborah Kaplan ---11/05/2015
10:07:45 AM---On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Richard Schwerdtfeger
>             wrote: > but I b Deborah
>             Kaplan ---11/05/2015 10:07:45 AM---On Thu, 5 Nov 2015,
Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > but I believe this
>             addresses the requirements of
>
>             From: Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com>
>             To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
>             Cc: WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>, DPUB-ARIA
<public-dpub-aria@w3.org>
>             Date: 11/05/2015 10:07 AM
>             Subject: Re: Proposal: remove aria-describedat from the ARIA
1.1  specification
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

>             _
>
>
>
>
>
>             On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>
>             > but I believe this addresses the requirements of
>             > the digital publishing industry.
>
>             One of our biggest concerns was that this extended
description be
>             something that could be semantically identified AS an
extended
>             description. Was this addressed in discussions at TPAC? Based
on the
>             email that has gone by, I have not seen anything that will
distinguish
>             extended descriptions in <details> elements from anything
else in a
>             <details> element.
>
>             Deborah Kaplan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>