- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 07:02:06 +0100
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, david.bolter@gmail.com, jbrewer@w3.org, faulkner.steve@gmail.com, mike@w3.org
Features:
* Should an element be able to have both @aria-describedAT
and @aria-describedBY on the same element?
* When linking to a page-internal element, why prefer describedAT
over describedBY? What is the difference, for the user?
* Should describedAT be allowed to point to hidden elements? Note
that this would permit using the :target{} selector to make
hidden content visible.
Name features:
Silvia Pfeiffer, Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:28:34 +1100:
> Hmm, can we break out completely with something simpler? I was
> considering @transcription for video, which would in a long
> description transcribe everything that happens in a video (not just
> what is being said). Could @transcription work on images? On canvas?
I'll defend the current name. To use the aria- prefix, does at least do
two good things:
* It follows an established pattern within ARIA. Why is
describedAT so 'special' that it needs a unique naming style?
A single attribute without the prefix only sounds confusing.
* It learns from the antipattern set by @longdesc and @summary:
Unique names for seldom used/seen attributes is no good. Better
with an often seen prefix for a range of related attributes.
@aria-DESCRIBEDat, is not completely void of benefits:
* It indicates relationship to aria-DESCRIBEDby
* The 'AT' part has hyperlink connotations - @.
* Less technical than 'fooURL' and leads the thought towards the
content that one points to and thus delegitimizes misuse.
--
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 06:03:13 UTC