WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: (Title element) WAS WCAG 2.1 - 1.3.5 - How to capture a violation?

for

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Jul 30, 2018 1:47PM

Hey John
I thought it was a mistake, and nobody will balme you for getting this
thing wrong with the thorough and detailed explanation you were
providing on a different topic (that explanation has been duely saved
to my favorites and given a write up in my accessibility guide related
to WCAG 2.1).
NO problem, glad this was a minor mistake of yours and not a
substantive change in the W3C specifications.


On 7/30/18, John Foliot < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> So... I may have been wrong there...
>
> There are multiple documents now at the W3C related to name-calculation, so
> that is a problem as well as a source of confusion.
>
> Further reading and research suggests that ARIA 1.1 no longer references
> the @title attribute directly, but the *HTML Accessibility API Mappings
> 1.0*
> Recommendation *does* (
> https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aam-1.0/#input-type-text-input-type-password-input-type-search-input-type-tel-input-type-url-and-textarea-element),
> as does the *Accessible Name and Description Computation 1.1*
> Recommendation (
> https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-1.1/).
>
> *The ARIA 1.1 *spec says this about @title:
>
> (The accessible)
> name comes from values provided by the author in explicit markup features
> such as the aria-label
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#aria-label> attribute,
> the aria-labelledby
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#aria-labelledby> attribute,
> or the host language labeling mechanism, such as the alt or title
> attributes
> in HTML, with HTML title attribute having the lowest precedence for
> specifying a text alternative.
>
>
> So I mis-spoke, and apologize for adding confusion. It was late, I was
> discussing a different topic, and didn't give enough research to that
> point.
>
> JF
>
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
> <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
>> Agreed.
>> For clarity, we are talking about the title attribute, not the title
>> element.
>>
>> The Accessible name calculation algorithm has allowed use of the title
>> attribute as a source of accessible name for years.
>> It is accessible to more people than aria-label, which is purely a
>> screen reader solution, without CSS or JavaScript custom
>> implementation.
>> For focusable element the title attribute is supported as a source of
>> accessible name by the vast majority of common browser and screen
>> reader combinations.
>>
>> Removing a valid source of accessible name from the accessible name
>> algorithm that has been stable and used for years, on thousands of
>> pages, needs a pretty strong justification in my opinion.
>> It creates a lot of work and makes accessibility standards less
>> credible and robust.
>> Imagine recommending the use of a certain HTmL or ARIA attribute
>> because it solves a problem and it is a valid technique listed in a
>> standard.
>> If there is precedent that such attributes are removed from the
>> standard down the road, a product owner is not going to allocate
>> deverloper time to add this attribute.
>>
>> Assistive technology support is not a valid reason , as far as I know,
>> so what is?
>>
>>
>> On 7/30/18, Joseph Sherman < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>> > I saw the exchange, that the Title element is no longer part of the
>> > accessible name calculation. We have been using the following code for
>> some
>> > font icons- the plug in we are using allows only the addition of the
>> Title
>> > element to the font icons repository. Manually adding labels for every
>> use
>> > of the font icons is impractical, as most folks adding the icons are
>> > not
>> > code savvy, they just use the WYSWYG editor.
>> >
>> > <a class="ts-font-icons-link " href="http://*/news/rss.html"
>> target="_blank"
>> > title="RSS Feed"><i class="ts-font-icon icon-rss_ko"
>> > style="background-color:#ffffff; width: auto; height: auto; font-size:
>> 31px;
>> > line-height: 100%;color:#353a3d;"></i></a>
>> >
>> > Wouldn't it have be better to add the Title element to AT instead of
>> > removing it from the Specification?
>> >
>> > Joseph
>> >
>> >
>> >