Re: Is ARIA A11y only? [Was: @aria-describedat at-risk ...]

Hi Again,

I've a proposal inline.

James Craig writes:
> Comments inline. 
> > On Dec 10, 2014, at 8:44 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> > 
> > The ARIA-1.1 spec Introduction says the following:
> > 
> > "User Agent Support
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > "Aside from using WAI-ARIA markup to improve what is exposed to
> > accessibility APIs, user agents behave as they would natively. Assistive
> > technologies react to the extra information in the accessibility API as
> > they already do for the same information on non-web content. User agents
> > that are not assistive technologies, however, need do nothing beyond
> > providing appropriate updates to the accessibility API.
> > 
> > "The WAI-ARIA specification neither requires or forbids user agents from
> > enhancing native presentation and interaction behaviors on the basis of
> > WAI-ARIA markup.
> > 
> > Mainstream user agents might expose WAI-ARIA
> > navigational landmarks (for example, as a dialog box or through a
> > keyboard command) with the intention to facilitate navigation for all
> > users.  User agents are encouraged to maximize their usefulness to
> > users, including users without disabilities."
> > 					      
> > 					      We should probably fix the
> > 					      grammar in the last
> > 					      paragraph quoted above,
> > 					      i.e. should be "neither
> > 					      requires nor forbids."
> 
> Fixed. Thanks.
> 
> > 					      Beyond that I'm at a loss
> > 					      to understand how this is
> > 					      insufficiently clear,
> > 					      including for DescribedAt.
> 
> It is clear, but it is clearly in direct conflict with the new UA reqs in
> #aria-describedat.
> 
> >> The WAI-ARIA specification neither requires or forbids user agents from
> >> enhancing native presentation and interaction behaviors on the basis of
> >> WAI-ARIA markup. [1]
> 
> And then later, a direct contradiction in #aria-describedat:
> 
> >> User agents SHOULD provide a device-independent mechanism to allow a
> >> user to navigate the user agent to content referenced by the aria-
> >> describedat attribute. User agents SHOULD also provide a device-
> >> independent mechanism to return the user's focus from the descriptive
> >> content view to the original content view. [2]
> Where you see two statements in conflict, I see the first statement
> defining the bounds of the second.

If we haven't made that sufficiently clear, then we need to clarify that
somehow, and we should do so globally, to avoid exactly this kind of
confusion.

I'm open to proposals as to how best to do this, and I will take some
time to see if I have notions on how to do it.

Perhaps some additional language were we discuss our reliance on RFC2119
would help. But, let's do what we must to make it very clear.

James, would this kind of clarification work for you?

Janina

> 
> These are RFC-2119 *requirements* for the user agent to enhance its native 
> presentation and interaction behaviors on the basis of WAI-ARIA markup. 
> 
> James
> 
> 1. http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/aria.html#ua-support
> 2. http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/aria.html#aria-describedat
> 3. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/

Received on Thursday, 11 December 2014 20:44:32 UTC