RE: is there any accessibility downside to having role="list" on an ul element?

So which bit is the so-called semantics? The descriptions of the type of marker such as ‘bullet’ or ‘square’ or the LF/CR at the end of each list item? Or even the navigability that screen readers include such as using ‘l’ and ‘I’ quick keys in JAWS and NVDA?

 

It’s worth noting that descriptions for certain types of implementations of list-style-type  | image or pseudo-elements (e.g., icon fonts, images, proprietary or unrecognised Unicode characters) are not announced by screen readers when used as markers, but the LF/CR is maintained (i.e., the structural semantics are maintained).

 

Also, on Windows, I seem to recall that certain list markers are not visible in WHCM (e.g., anything that is black by default).

 

So the real question is which bit of the semantics is important and whether developers should be adding hacks to support one browser vendor whose understanding of semantics may be different?

 

And here’s a bit of usability testing … I use the navigation keys in JAWS and NVDA to skip through lists all the time so role=”none” would be a bigger concern for me than whether a description of the marker is announced.

 

 

 

 

 

From: bryan rasmussen <rasmussen.bryan@gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 10:49 PM
To: WAI IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Subject: is there any accessibility downside to having role="list" on an ul element?

 

A design component library we are using is putting role="list" on ul elements. Aside from just being sort of stupid are there any actual accessibility problems associated with that? 

 

Thanks,

Bryan Rasmussen