Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Mapping of aria-errormessage for ATK/AT-SPI2 and IA2

Hey Joanie, all.

Let me try to summarise this mess from my perspective.

1. When you made your initial proposal (description relationships plus 
object attribute), I agreed. You clearly don't see them as fundamentally 
different.
2. However, I noted that if it's being exposed via description 
relationships, it follows that it should also be exposed as part of the 
calculated description text.
3. At this point, it became clear that several people (most notably 
Rich) believe that error messages are fundamentally different to 
descriptions and were thus against (2).
4. If we aren't going to do (2), IMO, (1) doesn't make sense.
5. It's also clear that there is significant disagreement amongst spec 
people as to whether error messages are fundamentally different or not; 
(1) versus (3). That's a major alarm bell for me. IMO, if ARIA and 
accessibility API disagree on this, the whole idea is broken and needs 
to be reconsidered from the ground up.
6. My suggested path forward from here is probably to do (1) and (2), 
despite the objections in (3). We can always change that decision later, 
since this approach is backwards compatible.

Thanks,
Jamie

On 12/04/2016 11:47 PM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
> Hey Jamie, all.
>
> FWIW, I had proposed exposing it via the existing description-related
> relationships plus an object attribute:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2016-February/002001.html
>
> And I indicated that I didn't have strong feelings either way about
> whether or not the description was included as part of the alternative
> text calculation:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2016-February/002011.html
>
> In other words, I personally do not see it as fundamentally different.
> Mind you, knowing that something is an error message might prove handy,
> hence my suggestion of an object attribute on the element that contains
> the error message.
>
> I don't like to take performance hits any more than you do. If you feel
> like this approach will result in a performance hit, then we should
> rethink things.
>
> All of that said.... Where I myself am is that we need to map this new
> ARIA feature. And we're trying to get ARIA 1.1 locked down. Given that,
> along with the fact that it is seen as desirable that we keep our
> platforms aligned whenever possible, what I want is *some* mapping. :) I
> tossed out the new relation type because I got the impression that my
> original proposal was not seen as acceptable, and because you suggested
> a new relation type:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2016-February/002019.html
>
> --joanie
>
> On 04/11/2016 08:18 PM, James Teh wrote:
>> On 12/04/2016 3:26 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
>>> If there's sufficient belief that errormessage is inherently different
>> FWIW, I don't believe this personally--I've not seen a single argument
>> that I wasn't able to defeat--but it seems like this decision has
>> already been made in ARIA. Certainly, NVDA will just be merging it into
>> description internally. What I will say is if ARIA views it as being
>> fundamentally different (as misguided as I think this is), it seems
>> problematic if the accessibility APIs merge it.
>>
>> That said, one nasty problem with an additional API or relation is that
>> we have to call/crawl that additional thing for *every* accessible just
>> to find out whether it has an error message. That's kinda ugly from a
>> performance perspective; we hurt performance everywhere just to support
>> aria-errormessage. Still, I guess this is the best we can have given the
>> majority opinion that it is so fundamentally different.
>>
>> I'm happy with the names you proposed.
>>
>> Jamie
>>

-- 
James Teh
Executive Director, NV Access Limited
Ph +61 7 3149 3306
www.nvaccess.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess
Twitter: @NVAccess
SIP: jamie@nvaccess.org

Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2016 00:10:00 UTC