W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > October 2010

[Bug 10450] Allow lists to be used as menus or tab sets

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 06:31:46 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1P5YOo-0002u5-NE@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10450

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com

--- Comment #13 from Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> 2010-10-12 06:31:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> As far as I can tell there's no other mention of "accessibility tree" or
> "accessible tree" in the entire ARIA spec, so it's not clear to me what that
> means.

It's common terminology for the tree of objects exposed in an accessibility
API. Usage examples include:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/NsIAccessible

http://doc.trolltech.com/qq/qq24-accessibility.html#qtaccessibilityarchitecture

http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/accessibility

https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Accessibility/AT-APIs/Web_Specifications#Accessible_tree_vs._DOM_tree_-_what's_the_relation.3f

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd318521(VS.85).aspx

http://www.code-magazine.com/articleprint.aspx?quickid=0810062&printmode=true

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms788733.aspx

And ARIA does define it in the implementation guide:

"The accessible tree and the DOM tree are parallel structures. Roughly speaking
the accessible tree is a subset of the DOM tree. It includes the user interface
objects of the user agent and the objects of the document. Accessible objects
are created in the accessible tree for every DOM element that should be exposed
to an assistive technology, either because it may fire an accessible event or
because it has a property, relationship or feature which needs to be exposed.
Generally if something can be trimmed out it will be, for reasons of
performance and simplicity. For example, a <span> with just a style change and
no semantics may not get its own accessible object, but the style change will
be exposed by other means."

Sure, the spec could include a definition in a glossary in the ARIA spec
proper, and that might even be a good thing for those unfamiliar with the
phrase, but what exactly would that definition clarify? What two or more
visions of the accessible tree do you have in mind that such a definition could
discriminate between?

> The spec does repeatedly make mention of "contained in or owned by"
> (where "owned by" refers to use of the aria-owns="" attribute). It doesn't say
> anything about following the relationships of the DOM ignoring elements with
> role=presentational or anything about following relationships in an
> accessibility tree.

What do "following the relationships of the DOM" and "following relationships
in an accessibility tree" mean? I don't understand what these phrases have to
do with the rest of the bug.

> So I would recommend getting the ARIA spec fixed first.

What would you have it say to have it "say what everyone here says it says"?

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 06:31:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:22 GMT