W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: WAI-ARIA comments from EOWG

From: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 06:40:35 -0500
Cc: <cooper@w3.org>, <shawn@w3.org>, <public-pfwg-comments@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E7E33A31-ADBA-4422-B6BB-7DAE28C49460@handsontechnologeyes.com>
To: <Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com>
the reason is that there may just be another accessible rich internet  
specification out there or one may be developped.  I don't know of any  
other spec/document fromwai that has wai as pat of its designation, we  
don't use wai ua or wai wcag for instance.


On Mar 5, 2009, at 2:02 AM, <Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com> wrote:

On:
* <a>ARIA Overview</a> should be <a>WAI-ARIA Overview</a>
I'm unclear if all instances of ARIA should be presented as "WAI- 
ARIA". My personal preference is to do "WAI-ARIA" on first use in a  
section and plain "ARIA" after that. I believe you're requesting that  
all instances be the long form, but I'm not clear. It's actually  
easier just to find-replace it all to long form than to decide when to  
do long and when to do short, but I don't know if that's best for  
readability.
In my humble opinion WAI-ARIA should not appear in other places of the  
spec than the title. Generally speaking WAI-ARIA is a synthetic term  
and I don't know historical reason for sticking WAI to ARIA, we don't  
call WAI-WCAG or WAI-ATAG. If there is a valid reason to have WAI-ARIA  
as opposed to ARIA, let it be only in the title.

Anna

From: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org] On  
Behalf Of ext Michael Cooper
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 9:43 PM
To: Shawn Henry
Cc: public-pfwg-comments@w3.org; EOWG (E-mail)
Subject: Re: WAI-ARIA comments from EOWG

Thanks for these comments. Here is where we're at:

Shawn Henry wrote:
>
>
> Dear PFWG,
>
> EOWG recently discussed the WAI-ARIA documents and have the  
> following comments. (These comments were generated by a subset of  
> the EOWG and may not reflect consensus throughout the group.)
>
> 1.  All of the documents
>
> * Make clear up front:
> - what is in that specific document and who it is for
> - that there are related documents designed for other audiences, &/ 
> or that are companions or dependencies of that doc
> - they should first have read the introduction to WAI-ARIA and the  
> related documents at http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria
I think you were reviewing the editor's draft, which doesn't have the  
public Status of this Document section that, I believe, addresses  
this. I also feel the introduction section of each document covers  
this. Are there further edits we should make in service of this? If  
so, please send specific wording suggestions.

Public drafts:
	• http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-wai-aria-20090224/http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-wai-aria-practices-20090224/http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-wai-aria-implementation-20090224/
>
> * For consistency with other WAI specs, consider the following  
> titles/h1s:
> - Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 [without  
> ‘Version’]
I made this change.
> - WAI-ARIA Primer for Accessible Rich Internet Applications 1.0
> - WAI-ARIA Best Practices for Accessible Rich Internet Applications  
> 1.0
> - WAI-ARIA User Agent Implementation Guide for Accessible Rich  
> Internet Applications 1.0
> - WAI-ARIA Roadmap for Accessible Rich Internet Applications 1.0 [or  
> no 1.0 needed?]
I think this is super-awkward. This is kind of like saying "WAI-ARIA  
Best Practices for WAI-ARIA". I also don't see that this change would  
make it more consistent with other WAI specs. The other editors agreed  
that we don't want to make these title changes.
>
> * For documents that are informative (rather than normative  
> standards/specs), make that clear.
This is addressed in the status of this document (again, an editors  
draft issue).
>
> * <a>ARIA Overview</a> should be <a>WAI-ARIA Overview</a>
I'm unclear if all instances of ARIA should be presented as "WAI- 
ARIA". My personal preference is to do "WAI-ARIA" on first use in a  
section and plain "ARIA" after that. I believe you're requesting that  
all instances be the long form, but I'm not clear. It's actually  
easier just to find-replace it all to long form than to decide when to  
do long and when to do short, but I don't know if that's best for  
readability.
>
> * Explain jargon like "user agent" on first use. Link terms to their  
> definitions in the glossary. Make sure acronyms are written out in  
> first use.
I did a massive linking of terms, and wrapping <abbr> around  
everything I could think of, which I hope addresses this request. I  
actually think I may have overdone it, but it was with the expectation  
that it's easier to pull back than to go through another pass to add.  
I welcome feedback about the appropriate amount of term links and  
<abbr> markup.
>
> * Consider using the CSS as is in /TR/WCAG/, especially for the  
> links to the definitions
We will take a look at this with a goal to adopting some of the styles  
from WCAG 2.0.
>
> * add [contents] link at the top, e.g., like /TR/WCAG/
This is done.
>
> * include link to public comments list in the Status section (or  
> wherever else appropriate)
Standard for public status; editorial draft issue again.
>
> 2. WAI-ARIA 1.0 Editor's Draft <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/>
>
> * In "This section is informative" link "informative" to definition  
> and un-italicize.
Done. I linked normative and informative to a glossary entry. I used a  
"termref" class which is styled to look how older WCAG drafts did it.  
The style for that class may be updated in addressing the above CSS  
request.
>
> * Change "Semantics are knowledge of" to "Semantics is the knowledge  
> of..."
Done
>
> 3. WAI-ARIA Best Practices <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria- 
> practices/ />
>
> "Writing rich internet applications is much more difficult than  
> righting in HTML. It is even more work to ensure your application  
> runs in multiple browsers and support WAI-ARIA."
> is pretty strong. Please reconsider wording. This could be taken out  
> of context and used to say that the main point is that ARIA is  
> really hard, instead of how awesome it is to the user.
I'll happily take wording suggestions. I did nothing yet.
>
> Note that some EOWG participants were somewhat uncomfortable telling  
> people so strongly to use toolkits. (more on this is in a separate  
> email)
We have agreed that we will make this change, but I can't promise when  
it will show up in a draft.
>
> (also typo "righting" and “support”)
done
>
> ###
>
> Regards,
> ~Shawn for EOWG <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/>
>
>
> ------------------
> Shawn Lawton Henry
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> e-mail: shawn@w3.org
> phone: +1.617.395.7664
> about: http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/
>
>

-- 
Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail cooper@w3.org
Information Page
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 11:41:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:53 GMT