Results: Seeking public feedback for W3C ARIA role=form landmark mapping

Hi,
I've included the thread information below from the question posed last week about remapping role=form, and all of the public feedback is in support of making role=form act more like role=region so that it is only exposed when it has an explicit label, but not exposed otherwise.

I agree with this too, since it would both add new functionality for those desiring it while not breaking current implementations without it.

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto:webaim-forum-bounces@list.webaim.org] On Behalf Of Tim Harshbarger
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 5:59 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List <webaim-forum@list.webaim.org>
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Seeking public feedback for W3C ARIA role=form landmark mapping

Hi,

My thought is that, if forms are only recognized as landmarks when they have labels, then you would just have to remove the aria-label from the example to ensure that only the search landmark is recognized.

<div role="search">
  <form>
    ...
  </form>
</div>

For the type of environment I work in, I think this approach would be more beneficial. On pages where we might have multiple forms within a main or other landmark, the role="form" and aria-label would give us an additional way to help differentiate forms for users. In existing landmarks where we might only have one form, we wouldn't be introducing an additional landmark that has little or no value for the user experience.



-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto:webaim-forum-bounces@list.webaim.org] On Behalf Of Maxability Accessibility for all
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 12:30 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List <webaim-forum@list.webaim.org>
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Seeking public feedback for W3C ARIA role=form landmark mapping

+1 to Birkir. I had the same question in mind as Tim has.

Will it not be a conflict for landmarks such as role="search" and <div role="form" aria-label="search">

Thanks & Regards
Rakesh
www.maxability.co.in


On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Tim Harshbarger < tim.harshbarger.cqwg@statefarm.com> wrote:

> I agree.
>
> I think there would be value to the user experience to treat a form 
> like a landmark when it has an accessible name, but no value if the 
> form has no accessible name.
>
> I think there might be a couple of cases where treating any form as a 
> landmark might either make the UI a bit more cumbersome to use or 
> where the landmark adds no value.
>
> First, there is the situation where a section with a landmark role may 
> only contain a form.  For example, it is not uncommon to see a site 
> search that uses a form.  If the site search is also contained inside 
> a search landmark, it ends up being a bit pointless.
>
> We also have situations where a page might contain multiple forms.  
> Again, knowing that this part of the page contains some kind of form 
> content probably helps the user very little.
>
> However, if the user knows that this is the newsletter subscription 
> form, the landmark becomes a whole lot more useful.
>
> Honestly, I could see a lot of value in identifying a form as a 
> landmark when it has an accessible name. It definitely could help on 
> pages where there are multiple "forms" or on pages where we want to 
> provide a more efficient way to navigate to an important form.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto:webaim-forum-bounces@list.webaim.org] On 
> Behalf Of Birkir R. Gunnarsson
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 6:58 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List <webaim-forum@list.webaim.org>
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Seeking public feedback for W3C ARIA role=form 
> landmark mapping
>
> I'd propose to treat the form role the same way the region role is 
> treated, i.e. to expose it as a landmark only if it has an accessible 
> name.
>
>
> On 4/19/16, Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
> > Currently form is already mapped as a subclass of landmark, this 
> > would simply bump them up in the accessibility API chain.
> >
> > Functionality changes would be noticed most readily using NVDA and 
> > Orca, which is why we are seeking public feedback as to whether this 
> > change is desirable.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bryan Garaventa
> > Accessibility Fellow
> > SSB BART Group, Inc.
> > bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com
> > 415.624.2709 (o)
> > www.SSBBartGroup.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto:webaim-forum-bounces@list.webaim.org] On
> Behalf
> > Of Schalk Neethling
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 12:58 PM
> > To: WebAIM Discussion List <webaim-forum@list.webaim.org>
> > Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Seeking public feedback for W3C ARIA role=form 
> > landmark mapping
> >
> > How are forms currently mapped? or are they not mapped at all?
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Bryan Garaventa < 
> > bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >> Currently the W3C ARIA Working Group is looking into a mapping 
> >> change for the 'form' role as documented at 
> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-wai-aria-1.1-20160317/#form

> >>
> >> At present, the form role is not mapped in the same manner as other 
> >> landmark roles within the accessibility APIs, which is why certain 
> >> landmark behaviors such as the ability to jump between landmark 
> >> regions and other such features are not automatically available 
> >> with forms.
> >>
> >> The current proposal is to remap form in the same manner as other 
> >> landmarks to enable this functionality in the future, which will 
> >> automatically apply to HTML form elements through their implicit 
> >> role mappings to the ARIA role=form API mapping.
> >>
> >> So the question for the public is, do people want forms to act in 
> >> the same manner as other landmarks?
> >>
> >> This feedback will be returned to the W3C ARIA WG for further 
> >> consideration of this proposal.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Bryan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Bryan Garaventa
> >> Accessibility Fellow
> >> SSB BART Group, Inc.
> >> bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com
> >> 415.624.2709 (o)
> >> www.SSBBartGroup.com
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> To manage your subscription, visit http://list.webaim.org/ List 
> >> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives

> >> Address list messages to webaim-forum@list.webaim.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kind Regards,
> > Schalk Neethling
> > Senior Front-End Engineer
> > Mozilla ::-::
> > _______________________________________________
> > To manage your subscription, visit http://list.webaim.org/ List
> archives at
> > http://webaim.org/discussion/archives

> > Address list messages to webaim-forum@list.webaim.org 
> > _______________________________________________
> > To manage your subscription, visit http://list.webaim.org/ List 
> > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives

> > Address list messages to webaim-forum@list.webaim.org
> >
>
>
> --
> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your subscription, visit http://list.webaim.org/ List 
> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives

> Address list messages to webaim-forum@list.webaim.org 
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your subscription, visit http://list.webaim.org/ List 
> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives

> Address list messages to webaim-forum@list.webaim.org
>
_______________________________________________
To manage your subscription, visit http://list.webaim.org/ List archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
Address list messages to webaim-forum@list.webaim.org _______________________________________________
To manage your subscription, visit http://list.webaim.org/ List archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives

Address list messages to webaim-forum@list.webaim.org

Received on Monday, 25 April 2016 16:02:02 UTC