-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 128
Consider adding a 'header' and 'footer' role #1915
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
Comments
I think, that these HTML elements have a clear semantics not only as direct children of body element but also e.g. in the article element. So why lose this semantic putting it to generic in the accessibility tree? |
This topic was discussed at todays meeting: https://www.w3.org/2023/04/20-aria-minutes#t04 But we realized we needed @scottaohara for it so we punted part way through :) |
No concerns from me! Please remember to send a PR updating the relevant "Accessibility considerations" links in HTML, which currently say e.g.
|
Nice! Small ping on
|
The changes that need to be made in html aam and the aria in html specs shouldn’t need to change the links in the html spec. But if they do, I’ll be sure to make a pr to html as well. |
A similar topic came up when we had been discussing
hgroup
and what that could map to (just agroup
right now), but in working on other updates to the HTML AAM spec today, I thought I'd check the temperature of the working group for roles like these. Especially since the header and footer elements are only exposed as landmarks under certain conditions, and the rest of the time these "semantic" HTML elements are no different thandiv
elements.Could it not be potentially beneficial to allow AT to expose something beyond a generic or group role for these elements, even if we put a stipulation that the role only be overtly exposed to the user if provided an accessible name?
Note that there are potentially similar existing roles with dpub
doc-pageheader
anddoc-pagefooter
Edit: I should have mentioned that I am aware this is retreading an older issue - #963 - but as that was closed in 2019 before the
generic
concept was implemented, and now we're also working on defining minimum role to combat generics not being useful, again, maybe we should think about if we should start thinking about rethinking this maybe?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: