RE: @required and @disabled - strong or weak ? (was RE: Does the HTML5 required attribute have the same accessibility affect as aria-required for an ARIA defined widget?)

Rich,

I understand about legacy applications built around HTML4 specs and the need to support "aria-required" on standard form controls.

Is there a need for web developers (today) creating new web applications to worry about using "aria-required" on standard form controls, they should just use "required", right?

Thank you for the discussion, it has been very useful to me.
Jon


From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 9:38 AM
To: James Craig
Cc: Steve Faulkner; James Nurthen; John Foliot; Gunderson, Jon R; w3c-wai-pf@w3.org WAI-PFWG; WAI XTech
Subject: Re: @required and @disabled - strong or weak ? (was RE: Does the HTML5 required attribute have the same accessibility affect as aria-required for an ARIA defined widget?)


If required is absent then aria-required should be allowed to override it. We also need this for backward compatibility to older browsers which do not support HTML5. I don't want to break existing code because HTML5 decided to enforce a host language semantic where the author *chose to* override it.

I agree that <input type="text" required aria-required="true:> is redundant but it harms nothing.

The spec. states that  <input type="text" required aria required="false"> is invalid. I agree. required does not exist in HTML4 and this conflicts with the host language semantics and there are no backward compatibility issues with this. This is already covered by the spec.

So, the net is although HTML5 has some implied semantics wrt the absence of a boolean attribute we have backward compatibility issues we must continue to support. ... and at the end of the day I have NEVER seen this to be an issue.

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger

[Inactive hide details for James Craig ---05/08/2014 06:11:40 PM---On May 8, 2014, at 4:06 PM, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@orac]James Craig ---05/08/2014 06:11:40 PM---On May 8, 2014, at 4:06 PM, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>> wrote: > There is a huge backwa

From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com<mailto:jcraig@apple.com>>
To: James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>>
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca<mailto:john@foliot.ca>>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com<mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com>>, "Gunderson, Jon R" <jongund@illinois.edu<mailto:jongund@illinois.edu>>, "w3c-wai-pf@w3.org WAI-PFWG<mailto:w3c-wai-pf@w3.org%20WAI-PFWG>" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>>, WAI XTech <wai-xtech@w3.org<mailto:wai-xtech@w3.org>>
Date: 05/08/2014 06:11 PM
Subject: Re: @required and @disabled  - strong or weak ? (was RE: Does the  HTML5 required attribute have the same accessibility  affect as aria-required  for an ARIA defined widget?)

________________________________



On May 8, 2014, at 4:06 PM, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>> wrote:
There is a huge backwards-compatibility argument to allowing <input type="text" aria-required="true"> to act as a required field to the AT APIs.

The same argument applies to <input type="text" required aria-required="true"> and no one is opposed to allowing authors this redundancy for the sake of backwards-compatibility.