Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Mapping of aria-errormessage for ATK/AT-SPI2 and IA2

Hey Jamie, all.

FWIW, I had proposed exposing it via the existing description-related
relationships plus an object attribute:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2016-February/002001.html

And I indicated that I didn't have strong feelings either way about
whether or not the description was included as part of the alternative
text calculation:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2016-February/002011.html

In other words, I personally do not see it as fundamentally different.
Mind you, knowing that something is an error message might prove handy,
hence my suggestion of an object attribute on the element that contains
the error message.

I don't like to take performance hits any more than you do. If you feel
like this approach will result in a performance hit, then we should
rethink things.

All of that said.... Where I myself am is that we need to map this new
ARIA feature. And we're trying to get ARIA 1.1 locked down. Given that,
along with the fact that it is seen as desirable that we keep our
platforms aligned whenever possible, what I want is *some* mapping. :) I
tossed out the new relation type because I got the impression that my
original proposal was not seen as acceptable, and because you suggested
a new relation type:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2016-February/002019.html

--joanie

On 04/11/2016 08:18 PM, James Teh wrote:
> On 12/04/2016 3:26 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
>> If there's sufficient belief that errormessage is inherently different
> FWIW, I don't believe this personally--I've not seen a single argument
> that I wasn't able to defeat--but it seems like this decision has
> already been made in ARIA. Certainly, NVDA will just be merging it into
> description internally. What I will say is if ARIA views it as being
> fundamentally different (as misguided as I think this is), it seems
> problematic if the accessibility APIs merge it.
> 
> That said, one nasty problem with an additional API or relation is that
> we have to call/crawl that additional thing for *every* accessible just
> to find out whether it has an error message. That's kinda ugly from a
> performance perspective; we hurt performance everywhere just to support
> aria-errormessage. Still, I guess this is the best we can have given the
> majority opinion that it is so fundamentally different.
> 
> I'm happy with the names you proposed.
> 
> Jamie
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2016 13:48:50 UTC