w3c
Draft guidance on aria-level
Levels are potential communicated using HTML h elements (h1-h6 and hgroup) and sectioning content elements (article, aside, nav, section)
It wasn't removed from WHATWG HTML. But also I think we can avoid talking about hgroup in APG.
It is really frustrating when trying to be consistent and follow recommendations. I know wrong place to post, just saying 😬
hgroup does not actually have any semantic effect in reality so should have a generic role same as div
@stevefaulkner commented:
hgroupdoes not actually have any semantic effect in reality so should have a generic role same asdiv
SGTM. ARIA group is semantically significant, and unfortunately way overused. So, we definitely do not need an HTML element directly mapped to it.
@zcorpan commented:
It wasn't removed from WHATWG HTML. But also I think we can avoid talking about hgroup in APG.
Where is the spec for HTML group? Is it alive dieing, or dead? As long as it is mapped to a generic (not mapped for now until we have generic), then I agree we don't have to cover it in APG 1.1. We may need to revisit that when we write APG 1.2 guidance for the generic role.
The spec for hgroup is here: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/sections.html#the-hgroup-element
https://w3c.github.io/html-aam/ doesn't map it to anything, currently, but there is an open issue about changing that: https://github.com/w3c/html-aam/issues/123
That issue has a dependency on https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/3499 .
So I think my previous recommendation stands: APG doesn't need to say anything about hgroup right now, but we should revisit later. Filed https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/1157
@zcorpan wrote
So I think my previous recommendation stands: APG doesn't need to say anything about hgroup right now
agreed