WAI-ARIA 1.1: aria-roledescription

[michael-n-cooper]

Filed at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/2015JulSep/0007.html by Sailesh Panchang spanchang02@yahoo.com

Refer to example #27/28 where this ARIA property has been set to "slide" on an element identified by an aria-labelledby.
Should the aria-labelledby text not identify this as a slide like " Quarterly Report ...slide 2 of 12"?
Else, there may be some preceding content before the slides that informs the user that a slide presentation follows and the slide identifier is "Quarterly Report ... 2 of 12".
And in example 29/30: :
Generally one advises developers not to label a button element as "Register button" because screen readers will voice the text "button" twice: once as a role identifier and once as the element's name.
So in this example will button not be duplicated?
In this case, "attachment button" does not convey the button's purpose. Should it be "download attachment"?
In which case, this should be conveyed as part of the button's accessible name, no?
So really from the description of the property or examples, I am not clear about the usage of aria-roledescription.
Or, is the aria-roledescription meant to override the element's role that is exposed to AT? If yes, this is not clear from the description.
Is it meant to work like a "hint" as we see in iOS and OSX with VoiceOver? At present the aria-description is exposed as a hint. Will this new property cause confusion for makers of user agents / At?
It is quite likely that developers will be very confused. Many are overwhelmed and unsure of what text goes into the different attributes for naming / describing elements and what takes precedence.
Thanks,
Sailesh Panchang

[michael-n-cooper]

I can't figure out what document this issue is filed against. Removing the ARIA 1.1 label for now. I suspect it needs to be relabeled or moved or marked invalid.

[mcking65]

Michael, this is referring to the examples in the
aria-roledescription description so it is an ARIA 1.1 issue.

I think the slide examples are appropriate and instructive. However, I agree with the criticism of the attachment button examples (examples 27 and 28). I believe those examples are misleading and a poor use of the property that the spec should not promote. I would advocate removing those two examples.

We have committed to providing guidance on roledescription in the APG in time for PR.