Re: New SC: Meaningful element name

As the first email suggested, it may fit in with G 2.4, but not sure
it is a good idea to tinker around with an existing SC and its
supporting documentation.
Sailesh


On 7/18/16, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
>> Basically any element whose name is  exposed to AT will be covered. But as
>> the first email stated, while other SCs (1.1.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.6)  cover image
>> buttons, links, form labels and the like some elements are not covered by
>> any SC.
>
> Since SC 2.4.6 covers visual labels and headings -- I'd think it would be a
> good SC to expand to cover a descriptive accessible name.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sailesh Panchang [mailto:spanchang02@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 8:18 AM
> To: Sailesh Panchang; WCAG; Alastair Campbell
> Subject: Re: New SC: Meaningful element name
>
> Alastair,
> Basically any element whose name is  exposed to AT will be covered. But as
> the first email stated, while other SCs (1.1.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.6)  cover image
> buttons, links, form labels and the like some elements are not covered by
> any SC.
> Those that are already covered by an existing SC will automatically meet
> this SC too.
> An ARIA landmark does not always need a name- the role:  role=main or
> role=navigation is sufficient. If an element is named and is not covered by
> any other SC this one will catch it.
> BTW this can support technique ARIA11.
> Sailesh
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 7/18/16, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: New SC: Meaningful element name
>  To: "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>, "WCAG"
> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>  Date: Monday, July 18, 2016, 7:38 AM
>
>  Sailesh wrote:
>
>      Proposed SC: Element name exposed to assistive  technology is
>      meaningful and describes element's
>  purpose.  Level AA
>
>  That sounds good for the case of specific elements that need  it (e.g. nav
> with aria-label), but might need tightening up  to exclude other elements.
>
>  I seem to have broken my accessibility inspector at the  moment, but Isn’t
> an element name exposed for many  elements? It implies that you’d have to
> name pretty much  everything, which probably isn’t what you intended?
>
>  Cheers,
>
>  -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 18 July 2016 13:59:15 UTC