W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Bug 14320 as discussed in Re: [aapi] UAI TF Meeting Minutes, November 8, 2011

From: david bolter <david.bolter@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:37:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEO7jQAH07G_o5_7kbXvuTyqcP9PtM1h-MeVOn97dbVP5mMyzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew King <mattking@us.ibm.com>
Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org, Becky Gibson <Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>
Yes, I can confirm first hand that we tested a range of AT when I was
helping implement accessibility for Dojo Digit 1.0 and our findings fed
back into FF implementation as well as ARIA spec improvements. Note I don't
recall us using aria-activedescendant at that time (I'm not an advocate).

Cheers,
David

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Matthew King <mattking@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Joseph,
>
> Yes, I have looked at every example I can find, including the APG
> examples.
>
> Dojo may have been screen reader tested. But, generally, screen reader
> testing is a very imprecise practice. I rarely see documentation of
> expected screen reader behavior for a tester to reference. When I do, it
> is not often correct. And, "correct" is sometimes a topic of intense
> discussion. The consistently reliable way to get good screen reader test
> results is to have it performed by a large group of blind and experienced
> screen reader users who have a nack for testing. Outside of that, the
> quality of results varies dramatically. So, I am pleasantly surprised when
> I hear the claim that screen reader testing was performed and then my
> experience is close to what I would expect. I do not get that pleasure
> often.
>
> Matt King
> IBM I/T Chief Accessibility Strategist
> IBM BT/CIO - Global Workforce and Web Process Enablement
> Phone: (503) 578-2329, Tie line: 731-7398
> mattking@us.ibm.com
>
>
>
> Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
> 11/10/2011 08:05 AM
>
> To
> wai-xtech@w3.org
> cc
> Becky Gibson <Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>
> Subject
> Re: Bug 14320 as discussed in Re: [aapi] UAI TF Meeting Minutes,  November
> 8, 2011
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> You wrote:
> > I am intensely interested in the combo box topic.
> >
> > I have not found a single usable ARIA implementation. ...
> >
> > I have been trying our example implementations with both JAWS and NVDA.
>
> By "our example implementations", do you mean the example links in the
> APG, including the dojo links[1]?
>
> > Among the worse are those that have a drop down but the focus stays in
> the
> > edit ... It's really confusing. If the user is scrolling through a list,
> > the focus needs to be in the list. So, I disagree with the statements in
> > the minutes regarding keeping DOM focus in the edit if the user is
> > scrolling through a list.
>
> This is a case where the combobox uses aria-activedescendant instead of
> roving focus.  Combobox is one of the few places where dojo uses
> aria-activedescendant.  By keeping focus on the edit field, as the user
> types, the characters are added to that edit field, and the dropdown
> list is updated to show just the items that match.  Functionally
> speaking, it is very similar to FireFox's location input (the "awesome
> bar").
>
> But, I had thought dojo had tested their ARIA markup with ATs, and that
> it worked.  Cc'ing Becky...
>
> [1] The dojo  combobox example links in the APG:
>
> http://archive.dojotoolkit.org/nightly/dojotoolkit/dijit/tests/form/_autoComplete.html?testWidget=dijit.form.ComboBox
>
>
> http://archive.dojotoolkit.org/nightly/dojotoolkit/dijit/tests/form/_autoComplete.html?testWidget=dijit.form.FilteringSelect
>
>
> --
> ;;;;joseph
>
> 'I had some dreams, they were clowns in my coffee. Clowns in my coffee.'
>                      - C. Simon (misheard lyric) -
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 10 November 2011 19:37:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:16:12 GMT