[AccName AAM] reinforcing "name" vs "description", split out algorithm into two

[patrickhlauke]

Currently, in the glossary http://w3c.github.io/aria/accname-aam/accname-aam.html#glossary there is a good distinction between "Accessible name" and "Accessible description". However, these two distinct concepts ("name" and "description") could really do with being more explicitly defined in their own prose section http://w3c.github.io/aria/accname-aam/accname-aam.html#mapping_additional_nd - maybe reusing/summarising their key nature, how ATs use them, etc from those glossary definitions.

In particular, the fact that the name is effectively always needed for interactive controls (xref https://www.w3.org/TR/aria-in-html/#fifth), and that an element that has no name but just a description is not ok in that context, would be good to add very explicitly.

Lastly, while it's space-saving to have the algorithm cover both name and description at the same time in http://w3c.github.io/aria/accname-aam/accname-aam.html#mapping_additional_nd_te, it doesn't exactly make it immediately obvious to follow (since every step then needs its own "if computing the name..." / "if computing the description..." prefixes). Perhaps splitting out the algorithm into two algorithms - one for name, one for description - and clarifying situations in which both results may be combined and exposed together as the overall text alternative may be clearer?

[patrickhlauke]

/cc @stevefaulkner as this crosses over into the same territory covered by http://rawgit.com/w3c/html-api-map/master/index.html#accessible-name-and-description-calculation

[jasonkiss]

Thanks, @patrickhlauke.

+1

Note that in the HTML-AAM (the HTML-API-MAP is the old and defunct version), the accname and accdesc computations for different elements are split out from each other: https://w3c.github.io/html-aam/#accessible-name-and-description-computation

Hopefully this makes it easier to follow. Agree it would be good to see similar in the ACCNAME-AAM algo.

[patrickhlauke]

can i just say that all these various specs are confusing, as it's always difficult to work out which one i should be looking at? related, i also just filed w3c/html-api-map#5 - if it's old and defunct, could this be signalled a bit more clearly?

[patrickhlauke]

FWIW this is still causing confusion (and not just to me, but others...this time in the context of accessible description for <a ...> links http://webaim.org/discussion/mail_message?id=34669)

[jechols]

I second this. We desperately need consistent documentation at a minimum.

Based on my reading of https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#descriptioncomputation_header and https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#link, it seems pretty clear that a link cannot use a title for its accessible description.

5.2.7.2 made me think that description must use aria-describedby or else the same algorithm for name is used. I clearly misread that part; it only uses the "name" algorithm on the element referred to by aria-describedby. Even so, there's no mention of title being a legitimate accessible description.

https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aam-1.0/#a-element on the other hand clearly states that aria-describedby and title are used for accessible description.

This is very confusing and makes it really hard to know if I'm looking at the correct document. I don't believe the misinterpretation is unique to me, even after looking over the documentation a second time now that I know I was wrong.

[jnurthen]

This issue was moved to w3c/accname#28