What is HTML5 ARIA? I do not understand how to implement it.
WAI-ARIA is a spec defining support for accessible web apps. It defines bunch of markup extensions (mostly as attributes on HTML5 elements), which can be used by the web app developer to provide additional information about the semantics of the various elements to assistive technologies like screen readers. Of course, for ARIA to work, the HTTP user agent that interprets the markup needs to support ARIA, but the spec is created in such a way, as to allow down-level user agents to ignore the ARIA-specific markup safely without affecting the web app's functionality.
Here's an example from the ARIA spec:
<ul role="menubar">
<!-- Rule 2A: "File" label via aria-labelledby -->
<li role="menuitem" aria-haspopup="true" aria-labelledby="fileLabel"><span id="fileLabel">File</span>
<ul role="menu">
<!-- Rule 2C: "New" label via Namefrom:contents -->
<li role="menuitem" aria-haspopup="false">New</li>
<li role="menuitem" aria-haspopup="false">Open…</li>
...
</ul>
</li>
...
</ul>
Note the role attribute on the outer <ul> element. This attribute does not affect in any way how the markup is rendered on the screen by the browser; however, browsers that support ARIA will add OS-specific accessibility information to the rendered UI element, so that the screen reader can interpret it as a menu and read it aloud with enough context for the end-user to understand (for example, an explicit "menu" audio hint) and is able to interact with it (for example, voice navigation).
ARIA stands for Accessible Rich Internet Applications.
WAI-ARIA is an incredibly powerful technology that allows developers to easily describe the purpose, state and other functionality of visually rich user interfaces - in a way that can be understood by Assistive Technology. WAI-ARIA has finally been integrated into the current working draft of the HTML 5 specification.
And if you are wondering what WAI-ARIA is, its the same thing.
Please note the terms WAI-ARIA and ARIA refer to the same thing. However, it is more correct to use WAI-ARIA to acknowledge its origins in WAI.
WAI = Web Accessibility Initiative
From the looks of it, ARIA is used for assistive technologies and mostly screen reading.
Most of your doubts will be cleared if you read this article
http://www.w3.org/TR/aria-in-html/
What is it?
WAI-ARIA stands for “Web Accessibility Initiative – Accessible Rich Internet Applications”. It is a set of attributes to help enhance the semantics of a web site or web application to help assistive technologies, such as screen readers for the blind, make sense of certain things that are not native to HTML. The information exposed can range from something as simple as telling a screen reader that activating a link or button just showed or hid more items, to widgets as complex as whole menu systems or hierarchical tree views.
This is achieved by applying roles and state attributes to HTML 4.01 or later markup that has no bearing on layout or browser functionality, but provides additional information for assistive technologies.
One corner stone of WAI-ARIA is the role attribute. It tells the browser to tell the assistive technology that the HTML element used is not actually what the element name suggests, but something else. While it originally is only a div element, this div element may be the container to a list of auto-complete items, in which case a role of “listbox” would be appropriate to use. Likewise, another div that is a child of that container div, and which contains a single option item, should then get a role of “option”. Two divs, but through the roles, totally different meaning. The roles are modeled after commonly used desktop application counterparts.
An exception to this are document landmark roles, which don’t change the actual meaning of the element in question, but provide information about this particular place in a document.
The second corner stone are WAI-ARIA states and properties. They define the state of certain native or WAI-ARIA elements such as if something is collapsed or expanded, a form element is required, something has a popup menu attached to it or the like. These are often dynamic and change their values throughout the lifecycle of a web application, and are usually manipulated via JavaScript.
What is it not?
WAI-ARIA is not intended to influence browser behavior. Unlike a real button element, for example, a div which you pour the role of “button” onto does not give you keyboard focusability, an automatic click handler when Space or Enter are being pressed on it, and other properties that are indiginous to a button. The browser itself does not know that a div with role of “button” is a button, only its accessibility API portion does.
As a consequence, this means that you absolutely have to implement keyboard navigation, focusability and other behavioural patterns known from desktop applications yourself. You can find some Advanced ARIA techniques Here.
When should I not use it?
Yes, that’s correct, this section comes first! Because the first rule of using WAI-ARIA is: Don’t use it unless you absolutely have to! The less WAI-ARIA you have, and the more you can count on using native HTML widgets, the better! There are some more rules to follow, you can check them out here.
What is ARIA?
ARIA emerged as a way to address the accessibility problem of using a markup language intended for documents, HTML, to build user interfaces (UI). HTML includes a great many features to deal with documents (P, h3,UL,TABLE) but only basic UI elements such as A, INPUT and BUTTON. Windows and other operating systems support APIs that allow (Assistive Technology) AT to access the functionality of UI controls. Internet Explorer and other browsers map the native HTML elements to the accessibility API, but the html controls are not as rich as the controls common on desktop operating systems, and are not enough for modern web applications Custom controls can extend html elements to provide the rich UI needed for modern web applications. Before ARIA, the browser had no way to expose this extra richness to the accessibility API or AT. The classic example of this issue is adding a click handler to an image. It creates what appears to be a clickable button to a mouse user, but is still just an image to a keyboard or AT user.
The solution was to create a set of attributes that allow developers to extend HTML with UI semantics. The ARIA term for a group of HTML elements that have custom functionality and use ARIA attributes to map these functions to accessibility APIs is a “Widget. ARIA also provides a means for authors to document the role of content itself, which in turn, allows AT to construct alternate navigation mechanisms for the content that are much easier to use than reading the full text or only iterating over a list of the links.
It is important to remember that in simple cases, it is much preferred to use native HTML controls and style them rather than using ARIA. That is don’t reinvent wheels, or checkboxes, if you don’t have to.
Fortunately, ARIA markup can be added to existing sites without changing the behavior for mainstream users. This greatly reduces the cost of modifying and testing the website or application.
I ran some other question regarding ARIA. But it's content looks more promising for this question. would like to share them
What is ARIA?
If you put effort into making your website accessible to users with a variety of different browsing habits and physical disabilities, you'll likely recognize the role and aria-* attributes. WAI-ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) is a method of providing ways to define your dynamic web content and applications so that people with disabilities can identify and successfully interact with it. This is done through roles that define the structure of the document or application, or through aria-* attributes defining a widget-role, relationship, state, or property.
ARIA use is recommended in the specifications to make HTML5 applications more accessible. When using semantic HTML5 elements, you should set their corresponding role.
And see this you tube video for ARIA live.
Related
Can someone advise me if there is a specific WCAG 2.1 failure when buttons are used as links. Same question vice versa. Links as buttons.
I have a site i am working on where by design there are links that appear the same as the buttons do.
So you may have buttons <button> like:
Edit details - which takes you to a new page where you can edit items in the page where the "edit details resides".
Continue - a button that takes you to the next page in a series of pages.
But then have links <a> which appear as buttons, so the same style, but they are labelled select, select and selected and these are a product type, so do not link anywhere.
Another example is the back link is a button<button> but looks like a link (text with underlined style)!
I know that this behavior confuses voice recognition as the user says click link or click buttonand not all objects get flagged that appear the same.
My question is does this fail WCAG2.1 specifically? Would this fall under 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value?
The 4.1.2: Name, Role, Value undestanding addresses the case of elements having different role than usual.
If custom controls are created, however, or interface elements are programmed (in code or script) to have a different role and/or function than usual, then additional measures need to be taken to ensure that the controls provide important information to assistive technologies and allow themselves to be controlled by assistive technologies.
As Adam already cited, "additional measures need to be taken to ensure that the controls provide important information to assistive technologies and allow themselves to be controlled by assistive technologies". So yes, this fails WCAG 2.1, unless you take measures to ensure that your button-links and link-buttons really work as they are supposed to for example that a <a role="button" […] can be triggered using the Space key.
If you really have accessibility in mind, don't mix <button> and <a> elements up. Not even if you think you are smart and add role="button" to a link or role="link to a button. You would have to do more than that to make them behave like each other (see MDN about the button role).
And even then you should consider this: links are for navigation, buttons for performing actions. If you have a navigational element that looks like a button, its behavior might be confusing (even if it has no role="button" attribute). Also note that the default value for a button's type attribute is submit ("The missing value default and invalid value default are the Submit Button state.").
Web accessibility should encompass all disabilities that affect access to the Web and there are a lot of possible disabilities – and having one disability does not necessarily mean a person has no other disabilities.
The easiest step of making your website more accessible is to stick to the standards. Don't change an element's behavior unless you really have to (and even then: do you really have to?).
Update: General comment about WCAG and accessibility:
Web accessibility is also not just about simply conforming to guidelines like the WCAG. Even the WCAG itself does not claim that a website will be 100% accessible when conforming to it:
Note that even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will not be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive language and learning areas. Authors are encouraged to consider the full range of techniques, including the advisory techniques, as well as to seek relevant advice about current best practice to ensure that Web content is accessible, as far as possible, to this community.
Update: Examples of possible violations of WCAG 2.1 (with room for interpretation though)
Just letting links look like buttons and nothing could be failing:
Guideline 3.2 Predictable in general ("Make Web pages appear and operate in predictable ways.")
Success Criterion 3.2.4 Consistent Identification (unless all links look like buttons; the only actual success criterion in these examples)
4. Robust in general ("Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted by by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies." & Guideline 4.1 Compatible "Maximize compatibility with current and future user agents, including assistive technologies." --> you already mentioned voice recognition and the possibility of not being able to target a link because it looks like a button)
Jonathan Pool wrote a blog article about this issue in which he points out another possible violation:
Worst case: A button that takes an irreversible action ("Yes, I confirm that I am waiving my rights.") pretends to be a link, so the user tries to use SPACE or SHIFT-SPACE to scroll the page but unexpectedly presses the button. This, arguably, would violate Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Success Criterion 3.3.4.
I am designing a website for our small company and would like to make
use of both semantic tags (<article>, <section>, etc.) and JSON-LD structured data snippets.
In addition to semantic tags and JSON-LD, we want to make out website more accessible to people with disabilities, and I have been learning about WAI-ARIA attributes.
Can the WAI-ARIA attributes be used simultaneously alongside semantic tags and structured data?
Or, is there a risk of a conflict that would affect their functionality?
WAI-ARIA support is iffy between both browsers and screen reader technologies.
I would recommend only using ARIA attributes in situations where you can not achieve the same result in native HTML, as HTML5 has greatly improved semantics. Adding ARIA attributes unnecessarily will do nothing to improve the accessibility of your website, and is just more work for you. Only use it as needed.
The first rule of ARIA states:
If you can use a native HTML element [HTML51] or attribute with the semantics and behaviour you require already built in, instead of re-purposing an element and adding an ARIA role, state or property to make it accessible, then do so.
For example, you wouldn't want to add aria-label to an image when you can just use an alt. There is also no need to explicitly assign roles with aria-role when many are already implied through their equivalent HTML elements (eg: button, nav, article). It's also prefered to use HTML states such as required and disabled rather than the ARIA equivalents: aria-disabled and aria-required.
WAI-ARIA Resources
PowerMapper WAI-ARIA Screen Reader Compatibility - This is a really good mapping of which ARIA attributes are compatible with which screen readers and browsers.
What is WAI-ARIA, what does it do for me, and what not? - Key sections I'd recommend reading are "When should I not use it?" and "When should I use it?".
HTML5 introduced many semantic elements (<nav>, <section>, <article>, etc.). But aside from helping read and structure our HTML, do they have any other unique properties? Or are they essentially just <div>s with different names? It seems like the latter is true.
I keep reading about the "semantics" but can't find a direct answer.
The <nav>, <section>, <article>, etc., elements don’t have any special properties that are exposed to frontend JavaScript code; instead they all just use the HTMLElement interface.
However, they do have special properties in screen readers—in that they get announced to screen-reader users in a special way that a div element doesn’t.
Screen readers can announce that a certain part of a document is a section or article, and allow screen-reader users to navigate through the document section-by-section, or to more easily jump among articles.
That said, screen readers also enable users to easily navigate through a document by jumping among its h1-h6 headings—regardless of whether those headings are in section or article elements—so for screen-reader users it’s actually more important that your documents have good informative h1-h6 headings and a logical structure.
Semantic elements are elements that describe the content. They provide more information to the browser without requiring any extra attributes.
Considering Microformats
When you’re adding semantics into your web pages, you should consider using microformats to add even more meaning, when appropriate. Microformats use human-readable text inside the HTML (usually in the class attribute of an element) to define the contents.
Microformats add semantic information about the elements, and this information is already being used in certain situations.
Above figure shows a Google search for reviews of the movie Ender’s Game. The second and third results show “rich snippets,” including information like the star rating.
Google and Bing are both using these types of rich snippets to enhance their search results, and most of the data they are using to get it is semantically marked-up HTML using microformats. You can learn more about how to use microformats in my book Sams Teach Yourself HTML5 Mobile Application Development in 24 Hours.
By writing semantic HTML, you give more information to user agents to use to display the information correctly. For example, if a screen reader sees the element, it knows that this is the main point of the page, and it will read it aloud before reading anything in an element. Plus, as web pages get more and more sophisticated, what the user agents do with them gains sophistication. For instance, in the future, your semantically marked-up recipe could tell a web-ready refrigerator what time to alert the robot butler to start the roast.
I keep seeing role attributes in some people's work. I use it too, but I'm not sure about its effect.
For example:
<header id="header" role="banner">
Header stuff in here
</header>
Or:
<section id="facebook" role="contentinfo">
Facebook stuff in here
</section>
Or:
<section id="main" role="main">
Main content stuff in here
</section>
Is this role attribute necessary?
Is this attribute better for semantics?
Does it improve SEO?
A list of roles can be found here, but I see some people make up their own. Is that allowed or a correct use of the role attribute?
Any thoughts on this?
Most of the roles you see were defined as part of ARIA 1.0, and then later incorporated into HTML via supporting specs like HTML-AAM. Some of the new HTML5 elements (dialog, main, etc.) are even based on the original ARIA roles.
http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/
While the First Rule of Aria states:
If you can use a native HTML element [HTML51] or attribute with the semantics and behavior you require already built in, instead of re-purposing an element and adding an ARIA role, state or property to make it accessible, then do so.
there are a few primary reasons to use roles in addition to your native semantic element.
Reason #1. Overriding the role where no host language element is appropriate or, for various reasons, a less semantically appropriate element was used.
In this example, a link was used, even though the resulting functionality is more button-like than a navigation link.
Delete
<!-- Note: href="#" is just a shorthand here, not a recommended technique. Use progressive enhancement when possible. -->
Screen readers users will hear this as a button (as opposed to a link), and you can use a CSS attribute selector to avoid class-itis and div-itis.
[role="button"] {
/* style these as buttons w/o relying on a .button class */
}
[Update 7 years later: removed the * selector to make some commenters happy, since the old browser quirk that required universal selector on attribute selectors is unnecessary in 2020.]
Reason #2. Backing up a native element's role, to support browsers that implemented the ARIA role but haven't yet implemented the native element's role.
For example, the "main" role has been supported in browsers for many years, but it's a relatively recent addition to HTML5, so many browsers don't yet support the semantic for <main>.
<main role="main">…</main>
This is technically redundant, but helps some users and doesn't harm any. In a few years, this technique will likely become unnecessary for main.
Reason #3.
Update 7 years later (2020): As at least one commenter pointed out, this is now very useful for custom elements, and some spec work is underway to define the default accessibility role of a web component. Even if/once that API is standardized, there may be need to override the default role of a component.
Note/Reply
You also wrote:
I see some people make up their own. Is that allowed or a correct use of the role attribute?
That's an allowed use of the attribute unless a real role is not included. Browsers will apply the first recognized role in the token list.
<span role="foo link note bar">...</a>
Out of the list, only link and note are valid roles, and so the link role will be applied in the platform accessibility API because it comes first. If you use custom roles, make sure they don't conflict with any defined role in ARIA or the host language you're using (HTML, SVG, MathML, etc.)
As I understand it, roles were initially defined by XHTML but were deprecated. However, they are now defined by HTML 5, see here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/roles#abstract_roles_header
The purpose of the role attribute is to identify to parsing software the exact function of an element (and its children) as part of a web application. This is mostly as an accessibility thing for screen readers, but I can also see it as being useful for embedded browsers and screen scrapers. In order to be useful to the unusual HTML client, the attribute needs to be set to one of the roles from the spec I linked. If you make up your own, this 'future' functionality can't work - a comment would be better.
Practicalities here: http://www.accessibleculture.org/articles/2011/04/html5-aria-2011/
Is this role attribute necessary?
Answer: Yes.
The role attribute is necessary to support Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) to define roles in XML-based languages, when the languages do not define their own role attribute.
Although this is the reason the role attribute is published by the Protocols and Formats Working Group, the attribute has more general use cases as well.
It provides you:
Accessibility
Device adaptation
Server-side processing
Complex data description,...etc.
I realise this is an old question, but another possible consideration depending on your exact requirements is that validating on https://validator.w3.org/ generates warnings as follows:
Warning: The form role is unnecessary for element form.
The role and other attributes improve the accessibility for screen readers. It can indirectly help search spiders identify and understand the individual section better. If I compare this and microdata schema, it improves SEO in a small way.
Role attribute mainly improve accessibility for people using screen readers.
For several cases we use it such as accessibility, device adaptation,server-side processing, and complex data description.
Know more click: https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/RoleAttribute.
"role attributes" are developed to help people who have vision or eyesight issue. Screen readers inform the user about the elements. Even though this seems an easy task but it is not. if you are not expert and not sure, do not assign a role. you can read from here
It is important to understand that sometimes poor ARIA implementation
can cause more problems than it can solve, making the content less
accessible. This can happen because of a lack of knowledge of how and
when to use ARIA.
Some HTML elements have implicit roles. For example:
h1,h2...h6 -> heading
ul,li -> list
button -> button
a -> link
<input type="text"/> -> text
You can override those, to be more descriptive
In the case of SEO, You can read the-accessibility-and-seo-myth/
A Google search for “Search engine ranking factors” displays a number
of results featuring leaders in the SEO/ SEM industry that outline the
many factors that improve SEO. The vast majority of the identified
ranking factors have no relationship of any kind with Accessibility.
In fact, even many of the google-ranking-factors don’t have much
relationship with Accessibility.
You can also read: SEO OVERLAP
While it’s important to understand where SEO and accessibility (a11y)
overlap in order to optimize correctly for both, it’s also important
to note that optimizing for one is not necessarily akin to optimizing
for the other. In other words, if you’ve optimized a page for search
engines, it doesn’t mean you’ve necessarily made it accessible — and
vice versa.
I keep seeing role attributes in some people's work. I use it too, but I'm not sure about its effect.
For example:
<header id="header" role="banner">
Header stuff in here
</header>
Or:
<section id="facebook" role="contentinfo">
Facebook stuff in here
</section>
Or:
<section id="main" role="main">
Main content stuff in here
</section>
Is this role attribute necessary?
Is this attribute better for semantics?
Does it improve SEO?
A list of roles can be found here, but I see some people make up their own. Is that allowed or a correct use of the role attribute?
Any thoughts on this?
Most of the roles you see were defined as part of ARIA 1.0, and then later incorporated into HTML via supporting specs like HTML-AAM. Some of the new HTML5 elements (dialog, main, etc.) are even based on the original ARIA roles.
http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/
While the First Rule of Aria states:
If you can use a native HTML element [HTML51] or attribute with the semantics and behavior you require already built in, instead of re-purposing an element and adding an ARIA role, state or property to make it accessible, then do so.
there are a few primary reasons to use roles in addition to your native semantic element.
Reason #1. Overriding the role where no host language element is appropriate or, for various reasons, a less semantically appropriate element was used.
In this example, a link was used, even though the resulting functionality is more button-like than a navigation link.
Delete
<!-- Note: href="#" is just a shorthand here, not a recommended technique. Use progressive enhancement when possible. -->
Screen readers users will hear this as a button (as opposed to a link), and you can use a CSS attribute selector to avoid class-itis and div-itis.
[role="button"] {
/* style these as buttons w/o relying on a .button class */
}
[Update 7 years later: removed the * selector to make some commenters happy, since the old browser quirk that required universal selector on attribute selectors is unnecessary in 2020.]
Reason #2. Backing up a native element's role, to support browsers that implemented the ARIA role but haven't yet implemented the native element's role.
For example, the "main" role has been supported in browsers for many years, but it's a relatively recent addition to HTML5, so many browsers don't yet support the semantic for <main>.
<main role="main">…</main>
This is technically redundant, but helps some users and doesn't harm any. In a few years, this technique will likely become unnecessary for main.
Reason #3.
Update 7 years later (2020): As at least one commenter pointed out, this is now very useful for custom elements, and some spec work is underway to define the default accessibility role of a web component. Even if/once that API is standardized, there may be need to override the default role of a component.
Note/Reply
You also wrote:
I see some people make up their own. Is that allowed or a correct use of the role attribute?
That's an allowed use of the attribute unless a real role is not included. Browsers will apply the first recognized role in the token list.
<span role="foo link note bar">...</a>
Out of the list, only link and note are valid roles, and so the link role will be applied in the platform accessibility API because it comes first. If you use custom roles, make sure they don't conflict with any defined role in ARIA or the host language you're using (HTML, SVG, MathML, etc.)
As I understand it, roles were initially defined by XHTML but were deprecated. However, they are now defined by HTML 5, see here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/roles#abstract_roles_header
The purpose of the role attribute is to identify to parsing software the exact function of an element (and its children) as part of a web application. This is mostly as an accessibility thing for screen readers, but I can also see it as being useful for embedded browsers and screen scrapers. In order to be useful to the unusual HTML client, the attribute needs to be set to one of the roles from the spec I linked. If you make up your own, this 'future' functionality can't work - a comment would be better.
Practicalities here: http://www.accessibleculture.org/articles/2011/04/html5-aria-2011/
Is this role attribute necessary?
Answer: Yes.
The role attribute is necessary to support Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) to define roles in XML-based languages, when the languages do not define their own role attribute.
Although this is the reason the role attribute is published by the Protocols and Formats Working Group, the attribute has more general use cases as well.
It provides you:
Accessibility
Device adaptation
Server-side processing
Complex data description,...etc.
I realise this is an old question, but another possible consideration depending on your exact requirements is that validating on https://validator.w3.org/ generates warnings as follows:
Warning: The form role is unnecessary for element form.
The role and other attributes improve the accessibility for screen readers. It can indirectly help search spiders identify and understand the individual section better. If I compare this and microdata schema, it improves SEO in a small way.
Role attribute mainly improve accessibility for people using screen readers.
For several cases we use it such as accessibility, device adaptation,server-side processing, and complex data description.
Know more click: https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/RoleAttribute.
"role attributes" are developed to help people who have vision or eyesight issue. Screen readers inform the user about the elements. Even though this seems an easy task but it is not. if you are not expert and not sure, do not assign a role. you can read from here
It is important to understand that sometimes poor ARIA implementation
can cause more problems than it can solve, making the content less
accessible. This can happen because of a lack of knowledge of how and
when to use ARIA.
Some HTML elements have implicit roles. For example:
h1,h2...h6 -> heading
ul,li -> list
button -> button
a -> link
<input type="text"/> -> text
You can override those, to be more descriptive
In the case of SEO, You can read the-accessibility-and-seo-myth/
A Google search for “Search engine ranking factors” displays a number
of results featuring leaders in the SEO/ SEM industry that outline the
many factors that improve SEO. The vast majority of the identified
ranking factors have no relationship of any kind with Accessibility.
In fact, even many of the google-ranking-factors don’t have much
relationship with Accessibility.
You can also read: SEO OVERLAP
While it’s important to understand where SEO and accessibility (a11y)
overlap in order to optimize correctly for both, it’s also important
to note that optimizing for one is not necessarily akin to optimizing
for the other. In other words, if you’ve optimized a page for search
engines, it doesn’t mean you’ve necessarily made it accessible — and
vice versa.