Open Jym77 opened 1 month ago
Talked this over iN CG. i think we came to two conclusions:
aria-disabled=true
as disabling its comment, not just on groups and widgetsAdding the clarification: An a
element without an href
attribute by HTML and ARIA specs is not a link. It's a jump target and has no role, it's just text. You could replace the a
with a span
and there would be no semantic difference since the element was not give a name
to be a jump target.
Some notes on what I said during the meeting:
<a aria-disabled="true">x</a>
. Today I tested that with the free browser extensions for alfa, axe, and IBM Equal Access. None of them failed it. Maybe the situation is that the tool implementations haven't yet implemented ARIA 1.2's idea about aria-disabled.It seems to me that Wilco's conclusion 1 says "fix the rule" and conclusion 2 says "fix the code". These seem like mutually exclusive options to me.
Text has minimum contrast and the similar "enhanced contrast" rule has exceptions to Applicability for "inheriting semantic
group
orwidget
that is disabled".I've seen an actual page, part of a dictionary with links for each letter, looking like:
because there is no entry starting with "X" in that dictionary.
Now, the "X" text has bad contrast, it has an
aria-disabled
ancestor, which is matching our disabled definition (second condition: The element has a shadow-including ancestor whose aria-disabled attribute value is “true”.)But, since the
<a>
element has nohref
attribute, it is no alink
: HTML AAM, thus not awidget
, and its text is excluded from the exception, i.e. applicable to the rule which flags it as bad contrast.I think that in a case like that, the text should be part of the exception. It is, pretty much, "part of an inactive user interface component" to put it in WCAG terms.
I think we should be a bit conservative and only extend the exception to "
a
andarea
elements with nohref
andaria-disabled="true"
", rather than, say, to anything witharia-disabled="true"
.