Skip to content
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

Default Accessibility Semantics for Custom Elements #201

Closed
alice opened this issue Sep 4, 2019 · 5 comments · Fixed by #228
Closed

Default Accessibility Semantics for Custom Elements #201

alice opened this issue Sep 4, 2019 · 5 comments · Fixed by #228
Labels
position: positive venue: WHATWG Specifications in a WHATWG Workstream

Comments

@alice
Copy link

alice commented Sep 4, 2019

Request for Mozilla Position on an Emerging Web Specification

Other information

This will allow Custom Elements to have "default" accessibility semantics, analogous to how built-in elements have "implicit" or "native" semantics.

e.g.

this._internals.role = "checkbox";
this._internals.ariaChecked = "false";

These can be overridden using regular ARIA attributes as normal.

This is currently being implemented in Blink, and we intend to ship this alongside Reflecting IDREF/IDREF list ARIA attributes to element references.

@dbaron
Copy link
Contributor

dbaron commented Sep 4, 2019

cc @jcsteh

@annevk annevk added the venue: WHATWG Specifications in a WHATWG Workstream label Sep 25, 2019
@annevk
Copy link
Contributor

annevk commented Sep 25, 2019

Improving the accessibility story of custom elements is important and this is something we'd like to see happen.

cc @hsinyi

@nschonni
Copy link
Contributor

Just making the comment here instead of the PR, but I think this should be important given discussions like https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/1198069119897047041 which have people avoiding aspects of web components given accessibility gotchas

annevk added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 27, 2019
@annevk
Copy link
Contributor

annevk commented Nov 27, 2019

To be clear, this is important, but in the end this is a small part of a much larger whole and we tend to use important for bigger things I think.

@nschonni
Copy link
Contributor

OK, thanks for clarifying @annevk

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
position: positive venue: WHATWG Specifications in a WHATWG Workstream
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants