Re: [SVG] graphics-doc role should be graphics-document (ARIA has avoided inconsistent abbreviation)

Well, if declarations like role=figure are allowed on this, and the content may be both, interactive and static, but still has internal structure and will be often large and percievable, why not name it (as synonyme to role=region)

graphics-area

It isn't emphasizing the DOM aspect (everything is in DOM, so "document" is somehow pointless to me) but focues on the entity aspect.

Just a thought.

Regards
Stefan

Sent from my iPad

On 29.04.2016, at 19:44, Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com<mailto:richschwer@gmail.com>> wrote:

I don't think we want to do that all the time. We can give a graphics document a Figure role and include them in a list of figures. I don't think they would be part of the normal landmarks. We could ask ATs to include graphics-documents on a list of these with figures to jump to them.

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger




On Apr 29, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Fred Esch <fesch@us.ibm.com<mailto:fesch@us.ibm.com>> wrote:


Stefan,

We are not claiming a graphics-document should be a landmark, but it is an interesting thought.



Regards,

Fred Esch
Watson, IBM, W3C Accessibility

<0A980483.gif>  Watson Release Management and Quality


<graycol.gif>"Schnabel, Stefan" ---04/29/2016 10:00:53 AM---Due to the close relationship https://www.w3.org/TR/graphics-aria-1.0/#graphics-doc with role="docum

From:  "Schnabel, Stefan" <stefan.schnabel@sap.com<mailto:stefan.schnabel@sap.com>>
To:  Fred Esch/Arlington/IBM@IBMUS, Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com<mailto:richschwer@gmail.com>>
Cc:  Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com<mailto:amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>>, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com<mailto:jcraig@apple.com>>, ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org<mailto:public-aria@w3.org>>, SVG-A11y TF <public-svg-a11y@w3.org<mailto:public-svg-a11y@w3.org>>
Date:  04/29/2016 10:00 AM
Subject:  RE: [SVG] graphics-doc role should be graphics-document (ARIA has avoided inconsistent abbreviation)

________________________________



Due to the close relationship https://www.w3.org/TR/graphics-aria-1.0/#graphics-doc with role="document":

Application and document are currently treated as landmarks in AT.

Should it be possible to use landmark navigation to navigate to elements with role="graphics-document"? With other words,
is "graphics-document" besides from being ARIA structure related intended to have landmark properties, too?

If so, the long format would reflect that more properly.

- Stefan

From: Fred Esch [mailto:fesch@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Freitag, 29. April 2016 15:27
To: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com<mailto:richschwer@gmail.com>>
Cc: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com<mailto:amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>>; James Craig <jcraig@apple.com<mailto:jcraig@apple.com>>; ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org<mailto:public-aria@w3.org>>; SVG-A11y TF <public-svg-a11y@w3.org<mailto:public-svg-a11y@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: [SVG] graphics-doc role should be graphics-document (ARIA has avoided inconsistent abbreviation)

Either graphics-doc or graphics-document is fine by me.

Regards,

Fred Esch
Watson, IBM, W3C Accessibility

<0A980483.gif>  Watson Release Management and Quality


<graycol.gif>Rich Schwerdtfeger ---04/28/2016 11:37:46 PM---I am fine with changing it but with the prefix it is a mouthful. Now would be the time to change it.

From: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com<mailto:richschwer@gmail.com>>
To: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com<mailto:amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>>
Cc: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com<mailto:jcraig@apple.com>>, ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org<mailto:public-aria@w3.org>>, SVG-A11y TF <public-svg-a11y@w3.org<mailto:public-svg-a11y@w3.org>>
Date: 04/28/2016 11:37 PM
Subject: Re: [SVG] graphics-doc role should be graphics-document (ARIA has avoided inconsistent abbreviation)

________________________________




I am fine with changing it but with the prefix it is a mouthful. Now would be the time to change it. We can post it like does anyone object to the name change and just do it if no objections. I don't want to take meeting time for that.

Rich

Rich

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 28, 2016, at 9:34 PM, Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com<mailto:amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>> wrote:

If there is consensus on the main ARIA working group to go with the longer name, I don't have a problem with that. In the SVG Accessibility Task Force, we did discuss a number of variations on the name and settled on graphics-doc as a compromise between concise and comprehensible.

I would ask for a quick resolution, though (i.e., comments on mailing list this week & discussion at the next ARIA telcon), so we can update all the specs sooner rather than later, and definitely before the next heartbeat drafts.

~Amelia

On 28 April 2016 at 19:14, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com<mailto:jcraig@apple.com>> wrote:
While reviewing a related thread, I noticed the "graphics-doc" role should be "graphics-document"... With the unfortunate exception of the "img" role (I admit missing this), ARIA has avoided inconsistent abbreviation.

http://www.w3.org/TR/graphics-aria-1.0/#graphics-doc