RE: FW: Proposal: remove aria-describedat from the ARIA 1.1 specification

Steve,

It seems like we are always finding complicated and indirect ways to show important relationships for long descriptions and instructions.

ARIA doesn’t even define a role=”description” or role=”instructions” even though we talk about defining relationships to these concepts all the time and WCAG 2.0 defines “description” and “instructions” relationships as important for accessibility.

Just trying to represent the author in these issues in proposing solutions that simplifies accessibility for authors.

Jon


From: Steve Faulkner [mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 9:03 AM
To: Gunderson, Jon R <jongund@illinois.edu>
Cc: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>; Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>; Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>; W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>; public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: FW: Proposal: remove aria-describedat from the ARIA 1.1 specification

<img scr=”my-imag.png” alt=”short description of image”>
  Long description of image ….  Including tables and iframes
</img>

Hi Jon, I am sure that getting this implemented by browsers would be a non starter.
but this can be done to acheive the same
<details>
  <summary><img src="http://www.html5accessibility.com/images/HTML5_Logo.png<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.html5accessibility.com_images_HTML5-5FLogo.png&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=REZD8fc2AwufInstfW3L5jSLVS8bjZtAodDOhat7yAI&m=3tpwjiCYMMIVbyk_Exlmy7ALMQC-N3dT1s85VhFCuZE&s=Onb8eH1CQ9zPRitGurJAoDx3fRnY-7lUjvXIyLPU6yk&e=>" alt="HTML5"></summary>
  <p>HTML5 logo: Shaped like a shield with the text 'HTML' above and the numeral '5' prominent on the face of the shield.</p>
  </details>

http://codepen.io/stevef/pen/XmoqqZ<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__codepen.io_stevef_pen_XmoqqZ&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=REZD8fc2AwufInstfW3L5jSLVS8bjZtAodDOhat7yAI&m=3tpwjiCYMMIVbyk_Exlmy7ALMQC-N3dT1s85VhFCuZE&s=Qjqo9BrA7iBBhdaCWNW81ZAaTfJohNdczOj-dtpCPKU&e=>

details/summary works in chrome/safari/opera currently


--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.paciellogroup.com_blog_2015_03_current-2Dstandards-2Dwork-2Dat-2Dw3c_&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=REZD8fc2AwufInstfW3L5jSLVS8bjZtAodDOhat7yAI&m=3tpwjiCYMMIVbyk_Exlmy7ALMQC-N3dT1s85VhFCuZE&s=f-HIp4TZAI6y-dePYj_sUMr3Gs_3ZxOmBL3X2M3zohk&e=>

On 13 November 2015 at 14:42, Gunderson, Jon R <jongund@illinois.edu<mailto:jongund@illinois.edu>> wrote:
Charles and Steve,

If we want native semantics let’s ask the HTML5 working group to modify the IMG element to allow the IMG element to act like SUMMARY/DETAILS elements.

If an IMG element can be a container for other content (e.g. including iframes to shared long descriptions) then the markup becomes much simpler and testable by evaluation tools.  All this talk about creating links and flowto’s is going to be very prone to errors and just plain being overlooked.

If the IMG element contains content it would get the same “twisty” the SUMMARY/DETAILS elements get if the IMG element contains any content.

<img scr=”my-imag.png” alt=”short description of image”>
  Long description of image ….  Including tables and iframes
</img>

This approach makes it easier for everyone, but especially authors.

Jon


From: Steve Faulkner [mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com<mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com>]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 4:35 AM
To: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>>
Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net<mailto:janina@rednote.net>>; Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com<mailto:shane@aptest.com>>; W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org<mailto:public-pfwg@w3.org>>; public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: FW: Proposal: remove aria-describedat from the ARIA 1.1 specification


On 13 November 2015 at 10:32, Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru<mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru>> wrote:
Also, why not use a pair of HTML links, which provide bidirectional relationships for the Web and work for all users?

I couldn't agree more, we should be using standard HTML, which works for all users, wherhever we can.

--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.paciellogroup.com_blog_2015_03_current-2Dstandards-2Dwork-2Dat-2Dw3c_&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=REZD8fc2AwufInstfW3L5jSLVS8bjZtAodDOhat7yAI&m=h7YJ6Ekq0h4M1G-8RA-K98XEPpvoE1buAMtd47JmLZM&s=u9SoScJoeoteFShYONm0Wv0nTaYGCwBrmhN0zjx5Crk&e=>