Description
MDN URL
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/ARIA/Attributes/aria-label
What specific section or headline is this issue about?
The linked YouTube video
What information was incorrect, unhelpful, or incomplete?
While I do agree with the general sentiment of cautioning about the use of aria-label in general, and — being dyslexic myself — truly sympathize with the person giving the speech, I think it should not be linked in the current way. The arguments in the linked video are mad from a mostly reasonable standpoint from about a decade ago. Screen-readers neglecting to implement proper support for Unicode and Browsers/Plugins displaying unsupported codepoints as squares instead of rendering them in a supporting system font is (or used to be) a shortcoming of their implementations and not a general problem with aria-label.
What did you expect to see?
I agree that there should be cautioning about the use of aria-label, but the arguments in the video are either no longer valid, or have been based on shortcomings of vendor implementation. There are situations where — after continuous deliberation — the use of aria label in conjunction with e.g. the use of a Unicode based icon-font is a reasonable solution, and much better than neglecting an accessibility solution at all.
In my opinion, an example like the eye icon inside (alongside) password-fields could be used as an example of such a compromise, but there might be betters too. Accessibility is very important, but I would argue that it is better to advocate 90%-solutions than to give the impression that designing an accessible website is all yes or no restrictions.
Do you have any supporting links, references, or citations?
No response
Do you have anything more you want to share?
The tenor of the video against icon-fonts in favor of SVG symbols is mostly opinionated and not really fact based.