This document:Public document·View comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Other specs in this tool Accessibility Guidelines Working Group's Issue tracker
Quick access to LC-2912 LC-2916 LC-2917 LC-2918 LC-2919 LC-2920 LC-2939 LC-2950 LC-2951 LC-2952 LC-2953 LC-2954 LC-2955 LC-2956 LC-2957 LC-2958 LC-2959 LC-2960 LC-2961 LC-2963
Previous: LC-2960 Next: LC-2961
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/36 We should remove ARIA4 and ARIA5 because they are too ambiguous for both authors and auditors technically incorrect Too ambiguous Both techniques don't provide helpful information for authors and auditors considering that WAI-ARIA Rec. contains limited examples. We should provide more specific techniques like design patterns of WAi-ARIA Authoring Practices. http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-practices/ Technical correctness For ARIA 4, people who use assistive technologies may unable to operate user interface components when states and properties are not correctly exposed focus is not correctly managed (ex. "application" role in a page which doesn't contain JavaScript) For ARIA 5, people who use assistive technologies may unable to operate user interface components when roles are not correctly exposed focus is not correctly managed (ex. "aria-activedecendant" in a page which doesn't contain JavaScript) We could add failure example like "incorrect roles are exposed" or "incorrect states or properties are exposed" but I don't think they are necessary.