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

Re: ISSUE-201: Aligning the two change proposals

From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:12:53 -0700
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <m2r4spc3oq.fsf@eoconnor.apple.com>
Hi Steve,

You wrote:

> Your CP defines 'lightweight' hit regions without: 
> a) the ability to make them focusable

Is there something unclear about this note?

"Thus, for instance, a user agent on a touch-screen device could provide
haptic feedback when the user croses over a hit region's bounding
circumference, and then read the hit region's label to the user.
Similarly, a desktop user agent with a virtual accessibility focus
separate from the keyboard input focus could allow the user to navigate
through the hit regions, using the virtual DOM tree described above to
enable hierarchical navigation. When an interactive control inside the
canvas element is focused, if the control has a corresponding region,
then that hit region's bounding circumference could be used to determine
what area of the display to magnify."

> b) the ability to add accessibility states and properties that are
>    associated with interactive objects. Only providing the ability to
>    add a role to lightweight regions means the the usable ARIA roles
>    is limited to a subset of non widget roles, and even then those
>    roles usefulness ir constrained as they cannot have ANY states and
>    properties assigned.

Right; if you need to assign states or properties, just use an element.

Paul asked:

> Can we get an estimate of when you will be able to answer these
> questions?

Right now! :)


Thanks,
Ted
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 21:13:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:33 UTC