W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Issue 204 proposal

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:42:41 -0400
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org, Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <20120425004241.GB6113@sonata.rednote.net>

Sam Ruby writes:
> On 04/23/2012 09:27 AM, Matthew Turvey wrote:
> >On 20 April 2012 22:52, Cynthia Shelly<cyns@microsoft.com>  wrote:
> >>Edward, Matt, Jonas,
> >>
> >>I’ve created a CP for issue 204 which I think includes the arguments from
> >>both your CP and Laura Carlson’s.  We’ve been discussing this in the
> >>accessibility TF for the last couple of days, and I’d very much like your
> >>feedback.  My hope is that we can come to a single CP that address
> >>everyone’s concerns, and that you can withdraw yours.
> >>
> >>Here is my CP:
> >>
> >>http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v2
> >
> >Wouldn't it be easier to just go straight to a Call For Consensus on Jonas' CP?
> >
> >http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/AllowAriaReferHidden
> A more general form of that question, addressed to everybody in
> general, and Cynthia and Matthew in particular.
> If, at the end of the day, we have two proposals left, and we were
> to go to survey on those two remaining proposals, would you be
> intending to state an objection to one of those proposals in the
> survey?
> If we end up with a proposal that nobody is willing to object to,
> then we can skip the survey step.

At the moment the Details section of the two CPs appears incompatible to
my ken. I do not forsee the HTML-A11Y TF (or PF) accepting the language
of Sec. 7.1 as given by WHAT-WG.

The CP at
while beginning with the same use cases, takes pains to step through
ARIA processing and show the results that actually appear in OS A11y
APIs. This analysis directly informs the modifications requested to Sec.
7.1. in the Details section of this CP.

So, while the two CPs begin at the same point, and argue the same
abstract conclusion about allowing ARIA-Hidden, the actual result of
allowing ARIA-Hidden is quite different, as seen in the
differences between these two CPs in the Details section.

To put it more bluntly, I'm unclear that we are all on the same page
over the simple fact that ARIA-Describedby will only communicate
"flattened" text to the A11Y APIs--that any and all semantic ml will
necessarily be lost. This is a critical point that should not be glossed
over and should be clearly articulated in Sec. 7.1.


> >-Matt
> - Sam Ruby


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 00:43:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:28 UTC