This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
5.9.1 table Element Accessible Name Calculation If the table element has an aria-label or an aria-labelledby attribute the accessible name is to be calculated using the algorithm defined in Accessible Name and Description: Computation and API Mappings 1.1. Otherwise use caption element *** Otherwise use the title attribute *** Otherwise use the summary attribute If none of the above yield a usable text string there is no accessible name 5.9.2 table Element Accessible Description Calculation If the element has an aria-describedby attribute the accessible description is to be calculated using the algorithm defined in Accessible Name and Description: Computation and API Mappings 1.1. Otherwise use the caption element if it wasn't used as the accessible name *** Otherwise use the summary attribute if it wasn't used as the accessible name *** Otherwise use the title attribute if it wasn't used as the accessible name If none of the above yield a usable text string there is no accessible description Assuming the latter is the correct order.
Good catch. Easy fix: since @summary is non-conforming in HTML5, I just removed it from the calculation. See https://github.com/w3c/aria/commit/ab01fbbb8f679b26b7faa46d30ac6d5f01f2b45f
(In reply to Jason Kiss from comment #1) > Good catch. Easy fix: since @summary is non-conforming in HTML5, I just > removed it from the calculation. > > See > https://github.com/w3c/aria/commit/ab01fbbb8f679b26b7faa46d30ac6d5f01f2b45f Hi Jason, whether its conforming or not in a particular version of html doesn't make a difference, it's about how the UA creates the name/description, some UAs include summary in the calculation, which is why it is included in the algorithm, Suggest that it be left in. The reason for the difference in order bewteen the acc name and acc description is that when present the summary attribute is meant to be an accessible description of the table content. The UA implemented order of precedence needs to be re-checked to determine whether the order in the spec reflects implemmentation or some flight of fancy i cooked up at time of writing the algo.
(In reply to steve faulkner from comment #2) > Hi Jason, whether its conforming or not in a particular version of html > doesn't make a difference, it's about how the UA creates the > name/description, some UAs include summary in the calculation, which is why > it is included in the algorithm, Suggest that it be left in. Admittedly, I was perhaps a little hasty. Whereas the earlier HTML to Platform A11y API Mapping Guide tended to document existing UA mapping behaviour, the current HTML-AAM is a normative spec defining mappings and name/description calculations for HTML5.1 where @summary on table is non-conformant. From a quick review, @summary in the name/desc calculation for table is the only place where HTML-AAM includes an obsolete HTML5.1 language feature in a mapping or calculation. I'm not sure an HTML5.1 mapping guide should recommend calculating a name using an obsolete feature that's not supposed to be used in HTML5.1. If we leave @summary in, I think we should at least note that it is not a conformant HTML5.1 language feature, and why we are documenting this particular non-conformant HTML5.1 element, and not the mappings by UAs of other elements or attributes that are not or no longer conformant in HTML5.1. > The reason for > the difference in order bewteen the acc name and acc description is that > when present the summary attribute is meant to be an accessible description > of the table content. The UA implemented order of precedence needs to be > re-checked to determine whether the order in the spec reflects > implemmentation or some flight of fancy i cooked up at time of writing the > algo. That makes sense. Jason
HTML AAM is no longer an ARIA Deliverable. If you wish to pursue this issue please file at https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/issues