improve wording for braille patterns

[pkra]

Resolves #1232

Depends on w3c/aria-common#45

---

Preview | Diff

[jongund]

I think the current working is confusing, Part of specification says " not contain any characters in Unicode Braille Patterns ". Is there a reason we are not using "must not" or "should not"?

It seems clearer to say:
"The value of aria-braillelabel must (or should) not contain any Unicode Braille characters or values that result in no dots being rendered (e.g. Braille Pattern dots-0).

Then later it says the Braille should be translated by the assistive technology if not a Unicode Braille Pattern, So two things here, in general we have not been giving any direction to assistive technology developers and it would seem to be obvious to them not to translate the Unicode Braille characters if they found them.

[pkra]

@jongund wrote:

I think the current working is confusing, Part of specification says " not contain any characters in Unicode Braille Patterns ". Is there a reason we are not using "must not" or "should not"?

It is a SHOULD (not) - the list is preceded by "authors SHOULD also ensure that". This matches the way aria-label and aria-roledescription talk about these things.

It seems clearer to say: [...]

The current version took a lot of iterations to arrive at. Personally, I'd suggest to keep it as is.

in general we have not been giving any direction to assistive technology developers

The current version reflects feedback from AT developers.

[pkra]

Thanks @jongund! (For what it's worth, I think there's a good chance we'll see another iteration before 1.3 is finalized, e.g., implementation feedback.)

[pkra]

Also thanks @sinabahram!

[pkra]

@jnurthen this is also ready but depends on w3c/aria-common#45 (which is basically ready).