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

[Bug 10463] provide a comprehensive HTML5 to accessibility API mapping reference

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:45:12 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Otecy-00089S-Rr@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10463


steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |




--- Comment #13 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>  2010-09-09 10:45:12 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > (In reply to comment #10)
> > > The main issue with this is that the mappings are incomplete, many elements in
> > > the ARIA section have no default roles,state or properties. Accessibility APIs
> > > have role states and properties not included in ARIA. How ARIA should map to
> > > accessibility APIs is in the ARIA implememntation guide. How HTML5 should map
> > > to  accessibility APIs should be in a HTML5 to accessibility API implementation
> > > guide.
> > 
> > I think it's still appropriate for HTML5 to say that foo in HTML5 has to be
> > mapped to the same accessible role as ARIA role bar even we want there to be an
> > ARIA to accessibility API spec and an HTML to accessibility API spec.
> > 
> > Or do you want some HTML stuff to use accessibility API roles that are more
> > refined than what ARIA maps to?
> Note that the spec gives license to use a more refined accessibility API role
> when available and appropriate:
> "User agents may apply different defaults than those described in this section
> in order to expose the semantics of HTML elements in a manner more fine-grained
> than possible with the above definitions."
> Saying element foo has a default role of bar just means that <foo> and <foo
> role=bar> should behave the same, but this can use more specific accessibility
> API mappings than role bar would generally use, if appropriate for that
> element. I'm not sure what it would mean to say <foo> has a default role of bar
> if that were not the case. In fact, I believe this conclusion follows from ARIA
> without the specific requirements of the HTML5 spec, so long as any elements
> have a default role specified. Thus, I believe the only way to really do what
> this bug is asking is to remove all default roles.
> At least that is my understanding.

OK, so some questions:

1. where there is a strong semantic of 'no role' what are implementors supposed
to do, is that clear? because its not to me.
2. if the default roles are kept in as is would it not be best to also provide
implementors with a clear reference from this section to a more comprehensive
html5 to accessibility API mapping document?

-- 
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 Thursday, 9 September 2010 10:45:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:13 UTC