W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2014

RE: ARIA1 examples

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 18:55:23 +0000
To: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <872d1a1c9b2a45e0a2eca390b29a5251@BY2PR03MB272.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Sailesh,  my answers are marked below with JDA

As a user, will you be satisfied with the "X" as the accessible name for the button in example 1? Or would you prefer aria-label="Close window"? 
[jda] This is a good case for aria-label and likely an example of non-text content -- so IMO it would require aria-label or some other way of providing an accessible name.  I agree that current use of aria-describedby is not the right thing here.

The instructional text at the end of the dialog is available to all in the proper reading order; it is a long sentence and  it may not help usability if read every time one tabs to the button. And that would serve as a description ... not a name. 
[jda] Agreed, that is a description and is something that wouldn't necessarily be required for conformance IMO.

Will the form controls in example 2 or 3 fail WCAG2 (Level A) if  the content authors omitted aria-describedby?
[jda] For #2 if the instructions were required to correctly complete the field then likely yes IMO.
For #3 Perhaps no -- but if the buttons all had the same name such as "color" and the description explained what the colors related too -- e.g. font, background etc. then yes IMO.  In this case I'd treat buttons more like we treat links then form fields.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Sailesh Panchang [mailto:spanchang02@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 2:20 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; Jonathan Avila
Subject: RE: ARIA1 examples

Hi Jonathan,
As a user, will you be satisfied with the "X" as the accessible name for the button in example 1? Or would you prefer aria-label="Close window"? 
The instructional text at the end of the dialog is available to all in the proper reading order; it is a long sentence and  it may not help usability if read every time one tabs to the button. And that would serve as a description ... not a name. 
Will the form controls in example 2 or 3 fail WCAG2 (Level A) if  the content authors omitted aria-describedby?
Thanks,
Sailesh
--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 10/2/14, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:

 Subject: RE: ARIA1 examples
 To: "Sailesh Panchang" <spanchang02@yahoo.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
 Date: Thursday, October 2, 2014, 12:52 PM
 
 > If the instructional
 text is always visible  and placed below / next to the  field, aria-describedby will help user experience but is not  required to pass any SC.
 
 I'm not sure this is something we all agree  on.  If field specific instructions are not associated with  a field then it could fail SC 1.3.1 -- especially if the  instructions are after the field and we have a programmatic  way to associate them via ARIA.  
 
 Jonathan
 
 -----Original Message-----
 From: Sailesh Panchang [mailto:spanchang02@yahoo.com]
 
 Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 11:39
 AM
 To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
 Subject: ARIA1 examples
 
 The discussion about ARIA7 made me re-visit the
 ARIA1 examples.
 It is good that
 aria-describedby is available in our repertoire. But only in  some cases it is really needed to pass an SC; at other times  it may enhance the user experience without helping to pass  any SC. Here are some thoughts about the examples:  Example 1: Close button with "X":
 Maybe an aria-label  is the better choice here  for VI users of SRs / SMs.
 Associating the
 instructional text "closing this window will ..."
 is nice to do for user experience but I believe is beyond  the call of SC 3.3.2 and SC 1.3.1. Using aria-describedby  adds a lot of verbosity ... a simple aria-label="Close  window" is enough. In fact this is covered by ARIA14  and is the same as the first example there.  
 
 Example 2: First name field
 with instructional text:
 Here, the label
 'first name' is tied to the field - enough for SC
 3.3.2 and 1.3.1. If the instructional text is always  visible  and placed below / next to the field,  aria-describedby will help user experience but is not  required to pass any SC. 
 Well if the
 instructional text is displayed only when the field gets  focus like in  example 4 (iCITA), then aria-describedby  technique is certainly useful to pass SC 3.3.2 / 1.3.1. 
 
 Example 3 and 5: Buttons for
 Fonts / Colors / Customize:
 Here again the
 button text is good for SC 3.3.2  and 1.3.1.
 If there were a series of such buttons with  same names, then some section identifier  would need to be  associated with every button to serve as its identifier. The  aria-labelledby / aria-label method may be useful then.
 But associating the instructional text for the  buttons in the example is nice for user experience but not  required for SC 3.3.2 or 1.3.1. Arguably  it could be used  for SC 2.4.6.
 The ARIA technique is useful
 as in example 6 when the instructional text is displayed  only when a button gets focus.
 
 Thanks,
 Sailesh Panchang
   
 
 
 
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 18:55:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:16 UTC