- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 16:24:34 -0600
- To: Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
- Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <E708028B-134C-4DE6-90D6-2BE5453F0F22@raisingthefloor.org>
> On Dec 7, 2015, at 1:55 PM, josh@interaccess.ie wrote: > > There seems to be several layers to this thread (doing my best to unpick them as themes, they are in no particular order): > > 1) Machine readable associations. > 2) Clickable labels (in terms of user interaction). > 3) Labels may not always need to be explicitly programatically associated with their inputs if they can have appropriate title or other ARIA semantics applied. > 4) Does the use of title and/or ARIA semantics represent sufficient identity and relationship data to the user agent/end user and should we look at new ways of making these methods satisfy 1.3.1? > 5) Implicit vs Explicit programmatic association/determination. We know enough about the later, but what can we do to support the former? This seems to be a core issue in this thread. Agree. The bottom line for 1.3.1 is that AT and access features in user agents can programmatically determine any information presented - including relationships between things on the page. This was designed to not require any particular way of doing this — and it was expected that as AT and user agents became smarter- they would be able to figure this out with less and less information being required from authors. What is required at any point in time - is dependent on the abilities of AT and access features in browsers at that time. So no permanent red lines should be drawn around any particular technologies. G
Received on Monday, 7 December 2015 22:25:09 UTC