Proposal and Justification for ARIA 1.2 (Was: text role removal)

Earlier this Summer, I asked Simon Pieters from Opera to spider some results related to the text role removal. The results came in yesterday.

In addition to the Apple sites previously mentioned, at the time of its removal from the spec, the text role was used on at least 600 sites. Many (not all) of these sites include it because it is used in the popular jQuery JavaScript library for ratings widgets. I scanned the list quickly and I did not recognize any big sites other than potentially "Bed, Bath, and Beyond." Nevertheless, implementation in 2 major browsers, 1 major JavaScript framework, and over 600 sites indicates its usage is undeniable. 

Here's the evidence:
https://gist.github.com/zcorpan/02c3dc7d85c54a17c15500a24fc692a9 <https://gist.github.com/zcorpan/02c3dc7d85c54a17c15500a24fc692a9>

I consider this justification for publishing an ARIA 1.2 with the "text" role change proposal by Joanie, named "static" or something similar, with prose updates to make its usage and implementation more clear. Because of the above usage justification, the spec should also include a deprecated-but-valid synonym role, "text". 

To keep the release small and avoid scope creep, I propose the inclusion criteria for ARIA 1.2 be limited to updates that reflect the current state of the Web as it is today (e.g. include the "text" role) and any updates to correct or deprecate any existing use of ARIA the working group considers problematic (e.g. deprecate the "text" role in favor of the better-named or clearer synonym). 

James


> On Aug 5, 2016, at 6:22 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Michiel,
> 
> It will not be brought back in 1.1. The group reached consensus, not once but twice. 
> 
> We cannot hold up HTML and SVG any longer. Furthermore, the 2 implementations on the Apple platform were brought up previously. There is no new information here. Additionally, one of those platforms, iOS, has no conformant mappings in our specs. 
> 
> We can take this up again for ARIA beyond 1.1. I would recommend that you push for an ARIA 1.2 if you desire this feature sooner. However, right now the group needs to focus on getting ARIA 1.1 done. We need test cases, an automated test harness, and so on. There are far bigger issues with Web Components that we need to get started on. 
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
>> On Aug 4, 2016, at 9:32 PM, Michiel Bijl <michiel@agosto.nl <mailto:michiel@agosto.nl>> wrote:
>> 
>> I would like to add my support to bringing back role=text.
>> 
>> —Michiel
>> 
>> On 24 Jun 2016, at 19:07, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com <mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1 to James re adding back to the spec as it is implemented in multiple browsers and being used, therefore requires it be defined. If there are warnings required they should be noted in the section specifying the feature. 
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> Stevef
>>> 
>>> On Friday, 24 June 2016, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com <mailto:jcraig@apple.com>> wrote:
>>> Clarifying my concern with the text role removal. Apologies that I did not notice the change sooner.
>>> 
>>> My objection was not to an incomplete issue being postponed to ARIA 2.0. I objected to the removal of a *feature* that had been in the spec for years and was already implemented in two browsers. To my recollection, we never did that in ARIA 1.0. Furthermore, I'm not sure there is W3C precedent for removing a feature that has already met its exit criteria. 
>>> 
>>> It was one of the first features approved by the working group for ARIA 1.1, and had been in the spec for more than 2 years.
>>> The related-but-separate "text range/selection/copy" issues had been discussed and punted to 2.0 during the Toronto Face-to-Face in January 2014.
>>> 2 of the 4 major browsers have implemented the feature.
>>> The feature is used on a number of sites including major ones (I know of the iTunes Media Stores, for example)
>>> There is no serious objection from one of the other vendors (e.g. "Not implementable on our platform.")
>>> 
>>> Therefore, the feature should not have been removed from the spec. More importantly, because of the above proofs, it should follow the HTML model, and be added back in, to match the Web as it is today.
>>> 
>>> James
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> SteveF
>>> Current Standards Work @W3C <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>
>>> 
>