Split aria-state-or-property-permitted-5c01ea.md #2036
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,150 @@ | ||||||||
| --- | ||||||||
| id: yyw7k3 | ||||||||
| name: ARIA state or property is not prohibited | ||||||||
| rule_type: atomic | ||||||||
| description: | | ||||||||
| This rule checks that WAI-ARIA states or properties are not prohibited for the element they are specified on. | ||||||||
| accessibility_requirements: | ||||||||
| wcag-technique:ARIA5: # Using WAI-ARIA state and property attributes to expose the state of a user interface component | ||||||||
| forConformance: false | ||||||||
| failed: not satisfied | ||||||||
| passed: further testing needed | ||||||||
| inapplicable: further testing needed | ||||||||
| aria12:state_property_processing: | ||||||||
| title: ARIA 1.2, 8.6 State and Property Attribute Processing | ||||||||
| forConformance: true | ||||||||
| failed: not satisfied | ||||||||
| passed: satisfied | ||||||||
| inapplicable: satisfied | ||||||||
| wcag20:1.3.1: # Info and Relationships (A) | ||||||||
| secondary: true | ||||||||
| wcag20:4.1.2: # Name, Role, Value (A) | ||||||||
| secondary: true | ||||||||
| input_aspects: | ||||||||
| - Accessibility Tree | ||||||||
| - CSS styling | ||||||||
| - DOM Tree | ||||||||
| acknowledgments: | ||||||||
| authors: | ||||||||
| - Trevor Bostic | ||||||||
| previous_authors: | ||||||||
| - Anne Thyme Nørregaard | ||||||||
| - Jean-Yves Moyen | ||||||||
| funding: | ||||||||
| - WAI-Tools | ||||||||
| assets: | ||||||||
| - JFK's "We Choose the Moon" speech excerpt is courtesy of NASA. | ||||||||
| --- | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ## Applicability | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| This rule applies to any [WAI-ARIA state or property][] that is specified on an [HTML or SVG element][namespaced element] that is [included in the accessibility tree][]. | ||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I don't know if you meant for this rule to skip prohibited attributes on role=none/presentation/generic, but by using Included in the accessibility tree that's what happens. Those aren't in the accessibility tree. That stuff is covered by Decorative element not exposed though, so maybe that's okay? I don't think ARIA WG intended for those to be ignored. In ARIA 1.2 that includes almost all prohibited attributes. One thing you could do here is to use programmatically hidden instead:
Suggested change
There was a problem hiding this comment. Failed example 1 shows a failure on a generic role, so we would either need to change the applicability here, or we need to remove that example. |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ## Expectation | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| No test target (i.e., state or property) is prohibited on the semantic role of the element on which it is specified. | ||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I think it would be good for the word "prohibited" to link to the corresponding section in WAI-ARIA. There are lots of ways in which an attribute may not be allowed, and without a link this could be misunderstood to be broader than it actually is. There was a problem hiding this comment. I'm not a fan of the "(i.e. state or property)" bit. If we were to do this in all rules I'm concerned this would get messy. If we feel that "test target" as a term is confusing we should have a separate conversation about that, and then adjust all rules to fit the outcome. I don't think we want to introduce changes like this without thinking through the broader implications. |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ## Assumptions | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| There are no assumptions. | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ## Accessibility Support | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| Implementation of [Presentational Roles Conflict Resolution][] varies from one browser or assistive technology to another. Depending on this, some elements can have a [semantic role][] of `none` and their attributes fail this rule with some technologies but users of other technology would not experience any accessibility issue. | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ## Background | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| The presence of prohibited ARIA attributes is often the result of a developer using an incorrect role, or a misunderstanding of the attribute. These attributes are ignored by browsers and other assistive technologies. This often means that a state or property which should exist is missing. This can cause issues under success criterion [1.3.1 Info and Relationships][sc131] or [4.1.2 Name, Rule Value][sc412]. | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| Assessing the value of the attribute is out of scope for this rule. | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ### Related rules | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. This rule has an interesting interaction with Decorative element not exposed. It almost seems to me that this rule should cover everything that rule does, except that you've sidestepped all the overlapping cases by looking at elements included in the accessibility tree, which avoid anything role=none/presentation.
Suggested change
There was a problem hiding this comment. With your suggested change to the applicability, we would have some overlapping cases, which I think might just complicate things. As I've been digging more into it, I'm becoming more inclined to leave the applicability and expectation as they are. With that said, I think its still work adding this as a related rule so I'm going to add this suggestion in. |
||||||||
| - [ARIA state or property has valid value](https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/6a7281/proposed/) | ||||||||
| - [ARIA state or property is permitted](https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/5c01ea/proposed/) | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ### Bibliography | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| - [Understanding Success Criterion 4.1.1: Parsing](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/parsing.html) | ||||||||
| - [Understanding Success Criterion 4.1.2: Name, Role, Value](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/name-role-value.html) | ||||||||
| - [WAI-ARIA 1.2, Supported States and Properties](https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#states_and_properties) | ||||||||
| - [WAI-ARIA 1.2, Global States and Properties](https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#global_states) | ||||||||
| - [ARIA5: Using WAI-ARIA state and property attributes to expose the state of a user interface component](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/aria/ARIA5) | ||||||||
| - [Document conformance requirements for use of ARIA attributes in HTML](https://www.w3.org/TR/html-aria/#docconformance) | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ## Test Cases | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ### Passed | ||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| #### Passed Example 1 | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| The `aria-pressed` [state][] is [supported][] with `button`, which is the [implicit role][] for `button` elements. | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ```html | ||||||||
| <button aria-pressed="false">My button</button> | ||||||||
| ``` | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| #### Passed Example 2 | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| The `aria-pressed` [state][] is [supported][] with `button`, which is the [explicit role][] of this `div` element. | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ```html | ||||||||
| <div role="button" aria-pressed="false">My button</div> | ||||||||
| ``` | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ### Failed | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| #### Failed Example 1 | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| The `aria-label` property is [prohibited](https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#prohibitedattributes) for an element with a generic role. | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ```html | ||||||||
| <div aria-label="Bananas"></div> | ||||||||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I'm not sure this element is actually in the accessibility tree. ARIA 1.3 draft contradicts itself on that:
There was a problem hiding this comment. I could leave or delete this example, I think we could point to this sentence and say that it should be in the tree.
|
||||||||
| ``` | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| #### Failed Example 2 | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| The `aria-labelledby` property is [prohibited](https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#prohibitedattributes) for an element with an emphasis role. | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ```html | ||||||||
| <label id="importance">A very important fruit</label> | ||||||||
| <p><em aria-labelledby="importance">Bananas</em> are a great fruit</p> | ||||||||
| ``` | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| #### Failed Example 3 | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| The `aria-roledescription` property is [prohibited](https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#prohibitedattributes) for an element with a generic role. | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ```html | ||||||||
| <div aria-roledescription="fruit"><p>Banana</p></div> | ||||||||
| ``` | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ### Inapplicable | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| #### Inapplicable Example 1 | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| This `div` element has no [WAI-ARIA state or property][]. | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ```html | ||||||||
| <div role="region">A region of content</div> | ||||||||
| ``` | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| #### Inapplicable Example 2 | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| This `div` element is not [included in the accessibility tree][], hence its [WAI-ARIA state or property][] is not checked. | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| ```html | ||||||||
| <div role="button" aria-sort="" style="display:none;"></div> | ||||||||
| ``` | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| [explicit role]: #explicit-role 'Definition of Explicit Role' | ||||||||
| [implicit role]: #implicit-role 'Definition of Implicit Role' | ||||||||
| [included in the accessibility tree]: #included-in-the-accessibility-tree 'Definition of Included in the Accessibility Tree' | ||||||||
| [presentational roles conflict resolution]: https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#conflict_resolution_presentation_none 'Presentational Roles Conflict Resolution' | ||||||||
| [semantic role]: #semantic-role 'Definition of Semantic Role' | ||||||||
| [state]: https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#dfn-state 'Definition of ARIA State' | ||||||||
| [supported]: https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#supportedState 'Definition of Supported ARIA States and Properties' | ||||||||
| [wai-aria state or property]: https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.2/#state_prop_def 'Definition of ARIA States and Properties' | ||||||||
| [namespaced element]: #namespaced-element | ||||||||
| [sc131]: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#info-and-relationships | ||||||||
| [sc412]: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#name-role-value | ||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How would you feel about having this rule as a replacement of "Element marked as decorative is not exposed"? I think right now this rule avoids most overlap between the two rules, but it seems to me that the way the ARIA WG intends prohibited attributes to work, this rule isn't broad enough, and most of what it's missing is covered by the other rule. I left a couple suggestions, if you want to go that direction, I think we should consider deprecating the other rule.
@Jym77 I would appreciate it you'd weigh in on this too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry, I apparently missed this comment on my first look through. I agree with the sentiment here though, if we want to expand this rule with the applicability you suggested, then I think we should deprecate "Element marked as decorative is not exposed". Additionally, since "Element marked as decorative" doesn't have any accessibility requirements, including those failed cases under this rule would give more direction on what we think reporting requirements are.
TL;DR - In favor of expanding this rule and deprecating "Element marked as decorative"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seemed to have missed the initial comment also… No fully sure I remember all the details, but…
aria-hiddenno focusable content" and "presentational children no focusable content") can be consolidated into "presentational conflict is not triggered" (Merge "Element with aria-hidden has no focusable content" (6cfa84) and "Element with presentational children has no focusable content" (307n5z) #1507). It seems all 3 check a different aspect of the conflict. I've also gathered from a couple of discussions that ARIA group more or less considers triggering the conflict as an author error (even though it didn't make to the spec).aria-label(led-by)) without triggering the conflict.role="none" aria-label="foo"does trigger the conflict, thus the role is notnoneand the element is included in the accessibility tree (plus, thearia-labelmay be not prohibited on the effective role). I think we concluded that ARIA intention was to consider this as a prohibited attribute nonetheless.So, I'm rather in favour of deprecating "element marked as decorative" which is a bit half-baked and too narrow in its focus, and that we can do much better in terms of intention now. But I'm not sure that this rule is the best fit for the deprecation. I'm also not against a bit of overlap between "attribute not prohibited" and "conflict not triggered" rules, given that they do test with very different focus in mind, and also report a lot of different things on their own.