Re: suggestions for new roles and properties in ARIA next

On Apr 19, 2011, at 9:15 PM, John Foliot wrote:

> James Craig wrote:
>> 
>>> aria-description="text"
>>> 
>>> like aria-label except it maps to the acc description in accessibility APIs
>>> provides a means of including an extended text description internal to
>>> an element , could be used in place of table summary attribute. for
>>> images when an accessible name is not provided but a description is.
>> 
>> Kind of seems like you're stretching description to support the
>> semantics of @summary and maybe @longdesc. What makes you certain this
>> necessary?
> 
> What makes you believe it's not?


I'm not saying Steve's @aria-description proposal is unnecessary––I asked the question for the sake of discussion––but I usually feel the "separate but equal" approach is unacceptable. 

I know you well, John, and it certainly seems like you're trolling. If we get into this, I'll have to set aside some time on my calendar, and you promised to buy the beer, remember? Anyway, I won't get into a list religious war, but I will state a few opinions on the matter. 

This type of feature-not-intended-for-general-consumption tends to be forgotten, out-of-date, or even misused to the detriment of those it was designed to help. The aria-describedby attribute doesn't provide the description; it only makes it so the AT can perceive a relationship that's usually by the visual interface, but the description text is already there and readable to anyone, including but not limited to those with disabilities. There's no separate description for blind people. Make the main interface accessible and usable, and you don't need this type of thing.

An old, but relevant article about the "separate but not really equal" approach to accessibility.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/12/49195

Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 07:27:39 UTC