Re: ISSUE-201: Aligning the two change proposals

Hi chairs,

As we don't appear to be able to reach consensus on the 'unbacked regions'
aspect of ted's proposal.
Wondering if it makes sense for me to start work on a CP?



regards
SteveF

On 6 July 2012 08:16, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
> thank you for persevering.
>
> you wrote:
>
> "Each hit region has an associated control, which is either an element or
> an unbacked region description. You pass in the control when you call
> addHitRegion()."
>
> reading
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/the-canvas-element.html#hit-regions
>
> to clarify, regions only have a control when they have an associated
> element. so unbacked regions don't have a control right?
>
> As unbacked regions cannt be focusable and cannot have additional author
> defined properties it does not make any sense for ARIA roles that are for
> interactive objects.
>
> If the list of roles allowed on unbacked regions is constrained to those
> that make sense, then I could live with the rest of the concept.
>
> So I suggest either the list of roles that can be used or the list of
> roles that cannot be used be defined so no one is under any illusion that
> unbacked regions can make representations of controls, for example a
> button, accessible.
>
> Below is a suggested list of allowed ARIA roles:
>
> subset of document structure roles
>
>    - article <http://roles#article>
>    - group <http://roles#group>
>    - note <http://roles#note>
>    - region <http://roles#region>
>    - separator <http://roles#separator>
>
> landmark roles
> <http://roles#application>
>
>    - application <http://roles#application>
>    - banner <http://roles#banner>
>    - complementary <http://roles#complementary>
>    - contentinfo <http://roles#contentinfo>
>    - form <http://roles#form>
>    - main <http://roles#main>
>    - navigation <http://roles#navigation>
>    - search <http://roles#search>
>
>
> Is this something you are amenable to adding to your CP?
>
>
> reegards
> Stevef
>
>
>
> On 6 July 2012 00:02, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Steve,
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> > what is the source of the note? Is it in your CP?
>>
>> It's from r7029, which is one of the revisions my CP aims to restore to
>> the W3C version of the spec.
>>
>> > How is the region associated with the control since the region can
>> > have no properties added which define a relationship between them?
>>
>> Each hit region has an associated control, which is either an element or
>> an unbacked region description. You pass in the control when you call
>> addHitRegion(). Is this unclear in the spec text?
>>
>> > Soon as an author wants to go beyond simple grouping objects, they can
>> > no longer use the lightweight objects anyway as no relationship
>> > properties can be added to the lightweight objects.
>>
>> We should make the easy things easy and the hard things possible.
>> Allowing hit regions to be associated with either unbacked region
>> descriptions or elements allows for this: if you have a complex thing
>> which requires WAI-ARIA states and properties to describe, use an
>> element. If not, use an unbacked region description.
>>
>>
>> HTH,
>> Ted
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> with regards
>
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
>
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
> Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html