sul23-289 - aria atomic #98
Conversation
| @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ const StudyPlacesFiltering = ({items}: {items: StudyPlace[]}) => { | |||
| </Conditional> | |||
|
|
|||
| <Conditional showWhen={items.length > 0}> | |||
| <p aria-live="polite"> | |||
| <p aria-live="polite" aria-atomic="true"> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Was there a requirement for this? To my understanding, this has no different affect since there are no child nodes within this element. There's only the 1 node that changes which is reflected to the screen reader on each change. If the html was structured like below, it would be appropriate:
<p...>
showing <strong>{length}</strong> of {total}
</p>
The way I read the documentation is that if length changed, that would be the only thing that would be read out to the screen reader. aria-atomic=true would read out the whole thing if anything inside it changed.
Also on this documentation it explains that with a ul/li list of users, when a new li element is added/removed screen readers only read that change, not the whole list. But then turning on atomic would read out the entire list each time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The way I read the documentation is that if length changed, that would be the only thing that would be read out to the screen reader. aria-atomic=true would read out the whole thing if anything inside it changed.
This is how I interpret the documentation on aria-atomic. However:
TBD: Realistic use case for aria-atomic="true"
This doesn't bode well. Seems like there's not a good rules for this?
(The example page has multiple version, one example fits using an aria-atomic set to 'true'. https://pauljadam.com/demos/aria-atomic-relevant.html)
That is to say, I don't interpret this as a hard and fast rule, but a guideline. If you're using a screen reading, does it make more sense to has it say "x of 42" each time it updates? I suspect that would make more sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Doing some light research in the WCAG docs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not able to find a definitive answer to this. I ran axetools on both branches but the test didn't state having it on or off as an issue. To me, this confirms that it's not necessary but nice to have.
Not sure if it would be an issue.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since SODA did review this form and the aria attributes. I don't see a reason to push this up at this time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pookmish This came from ODA: https://stanfordits.atlassian.net/browse/SUL23-289?focusedCommentId=147663
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry. I should have sent this to you sooner.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks. Ok, as annoying as it is that they didn't notice it the first several times, thanks for that!
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
Co-authored-by: pookmish <[email protected]>
READY FOR REVIEW
Summary
Review By (Date)
Jan 23
Urgency
Steps to Test
Affected Projects or Products
Associated Issues and/or People
@mentionthem here)See Also