- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:25:26 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 24/08/2017 14:52, Jonathan Avila wrote: > Leonie, thanks for your feedback. The ARIA in HTML document indicates " Adding an ARIA role overrides the native role semantics in the accessibility tree which is reported via the accessibility API, and therefore ARIA indirectly affects what is reported to a screen reader or other assistive technology." This would seem to imply adding the role could change the nature of the element. Thoughts? The browser parses the element first and populates the various values it exposes. ARIA then overrides specific things (like the role). The end result is exposed via the accessibility tree/interface. i.e. the presence of ARIA does not change how the browser originally parsed/interpreted the element itself. At least that's my understanding. > I think we would both agree that <div role="img" alt="text"></div> is a failure As per the above, the browser itself doesn't start looking for the alt attribute after it sees that a role="img" was set, and that's why this is a failure. > but adding ARIA states and properties to an HTML element like <button aria-pressed="true">Toggle</button> is valid and desirable. > > Anyone else feel strongly about the case of img with role img and alt? Not sure there is a case to be made there - or rather (assuming my understanding of how the browser first parses and then backfills/overrides based on ARIA is correct) the above needs to be noted in the spec? P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Thursday, 24 August 2017 15:25:51 UTC