-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 123
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Rethink definition / term relationship and naming #2074
Comments
looking at the simplified explainer to move aria annotations into the aria spec proper, it already states that
it seems that part of my issue is already answered, in that this part of the spec should change. now the question remains if term/definition should allow for aria-label/labelledby at all. i lean towards 'no' / they should probably be author prohibited. |
updated spec text should talk about how a details relationship between these elements is necessary only in situations where the association might not be clear. otherwise, it is not a requirement for authors to make the association. otherwise, these roles should be changed to be name prohibited. |
Discussed in today's ARIA WG meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/11/30-aria-minutes.html#t07 |
The relationship for a term/definition is defined in the spec by creating an aria-labelledby or nesting relationship with the definition to the term.
If I recall correctly, the naming idea was so that a definition could be associated with its term. but looking at this now as i'm going through the roles / how they can be named, i'm not really sure why we didn't use aria-details instead?
Also, I thought it odd that at term could get name from author, but i realize that might be because of these previously being considered standins for
dt
anddd
elements, but that was also rethought when working on aria 1.2.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: