Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

Sorry for being spammy, but with respect to the loss of semantics: The
type of landmark is still being exposed via object attribute. So I'll
still know if an ATK_ROLE_LANDMARK is a form, or navigation, or ....

On 08/25/2016 10:24 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
> Hi Alex, all.
> 
> I don't recall saying "kill the form role" in ATK. We have no plans to
> deprecate ATK_ROLE_FORM. Instead, I believe I said something along the
> lines of the following:
> 
> Q: Should HTML's form element be treated like a landmark for the
>    purposes of navigation?
> 
> If Yes: Map it to ATK_ROLE_LANDMARK
> If No: Continue mapping it to ATK_ROLE_FORM
> 
> --joanie
> 
> On 08/25/2016 10:08 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
>> I don't think Jamie argues that FORM is not a landmark. The point is
>> that FORM is a form and also a landmark. IA2 provides a special FORM
>> role, which is used both for ARIA and HTML currently, and adopted by
>> browsers and screen readers.
>>
>> If we use weaker role for forms, then we loose semantics as Jamie
>> pointed out, and we make a not backward compatible change. All JAWS and
>> other commercial screen reader users will have to buy a new screen
>> reader version.
>>
>> ATK gained this role, because it doesn't have a mechanism to fetch all
>> landmarks on a page other than query it by role. And thus they are ok to
>> sacrifice ATK form role for performance reasons I think. Note, ATK world
>> doesn't have so acute problem of backward compatibility as IA2 has, so
>> they have a larger room for changes. IA2 landmark role is a ATK toll to
>> keep IA2 compatible with, this is a primary reason, if I do understand
>> that right. However I'm not confident too that we should take ATK path
>> and kill a form role too.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Schnabel, Stefan
>> <stefan.schnabel@sap.com <mailto:stefan.schnabel@sap.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi James,____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     currently Jaws treats forms like regions as landmarks, i.e. showing
>>     them in its landmarks dialog, too. They do this for reason, page
>>     structure is very clearly revealed by this. I consider this as a
>>     strong feature and do not like this changed.____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     The logic behind that is the pragmatic thinking that forms are
>>     landmark-like, too. And a “navigation” landmark can contain fairly
>>     complex content, too, not just a list of links.____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     Best Regards____
>>
>>     Stefan____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     *From:*James Teh [mailto:jamie@nvaccess.org
>>     <mailto:jamie@nvaccess.org>]
>>     *Sent:* Donnerstag, 25. August 2016 00:33
>>     *To:* Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:richschwer@gmail.com>>
>>     *Cc:* Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:surkov.alexander@gmail.com>>; Joseph Scheuhammer
>>     <clown@alum.mit.edu <mailto:clown@alum.mit.edu>>; Joanmarie Diggs
>>     <jdiggs@igalia.com <mailto:jdiggs@igalia.com>>; IA2 List
>>     <Accessibility-ia2@lists.linux-foundation.org
>>     <mailto:Accessibility-ia2@lists.linux-foundation.org>>; ARIA Working
>>     Group <public-aria@w3.org <mailto:public-aria@w3.org>>; Steven
>>     Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com <mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com>>
>>     *Subject:* Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     Hi Rich,____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     I understand the reason for the use of the landmark role for
>>     role="form". However, I disagree with the HTML form element being
>>     mapped to the landmark role because semantics are lost. The fact
>>     that something is a form has more semantic value than just being a
>>     landmark. Still, if the spec already requires this, I guess we have
>>     little choice but to comply at this stage.____
>>
>>
>>     Jamie____
>>
>>     On 25/08/2016 3:08 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:____
>>
>>         Jamie,  ____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         The point is we want ALL the landmarks to be treated the same
>>         way for ATVs. So, first we determine that it is a landmark. Then
>>         we go to xml-roles to determine the type of landmark. ____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         Otherwise, we need a special case for a form. That is what we
>>         are trying to avoid. For these reasons ATK/ATSPI created a
>>         landmark role first. ____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         The HTML the form element now uses the ARIA mappings for the
>>         form role. See "Use WAI-ARIA mapping” under the form element.
>>         This is for all platforms.____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/html-aam/html-aam.html
>>         <https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/html-aam/html-aam.html>____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         We do understand that non-browser applications may still use the
>>         older Form role mapping as would older browser versions. It is
>>         for these reasons that our definition of deprecation is that it
>>         has not gone a way but rather it is going to this new preferred
>>         mapping. ____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         Best,____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         Rich____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         Rich Schwerdtfeger____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>             On Aug 23, 2016, at 7:35 PM, James Teh <jamie@nvaccess.org
>>             <mailto:jamie@nvaccess.org>> wrote:____
>>
>>             __ __
>>
>>             If you believe that role="form" has no semantic value other
>>             than being a landmark, then let's go ahead and map it to
>>             IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK. On the other hand, the HTML form tag
>>             *does* have semantic value other than being a landmark, so
>>             I'd argue it should be IA2_ROLE_FORM.____
>>
>>             __ __
>>
>>             On 24/08/2016 5:22 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:____
>>
>>                 We are not asking that IA2_ROLE_FORM be deprecated
>>                 altogether. Even with ARIA we have some attributes that
>>                 re deprecated but that is meant so that there will be a
>>                 replacement solution. An example is the drag and drop
>>                 aria properties. For ARIA browser conformance testing to
>>                 exit Candidate Recommendation we will be testing for
>>                 IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK on form roles.  ____
>>
>>                 __ __
>>
>>                 Rich Schwerdtfeger____
>>
>>                 __ __
>>
>>                 __ __
>>
>>                 __ __
>>
>>                     On Aug 18, 2016, at 9:56 PM, James Teh
>>                     <jamie@nvaccess.org <mailto:jamie@nvaccess.org>>
>>                     wrote:____
>>
>>                     __ __
>>
>>                     On 11/08/2016 2:58 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
>>
>>                     ____
>>
>>                         1) adding IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and____
>>
>>                     Yes.
>>
>>
>>                     ____
>>
>>                         2) deprecating IA2_ROLE_FORM?____
>>
>>                     I'd argue that there is more semantic value in a
>>                     "form" than just the fact that it is a landmark.
>>                     This probably doesn't apply to ARIA (at least for
>>                     now), since role="form" is defined as only a
>>                     landmark. However, I'd argue it does apply to the
>>                     HTML form tag. So, I'm fine t not use IA2_ROLE_FORM
>>                     for ARIA role="form", but I'm dubious about
>>                     deprecating it altogether, including for the HTML
>>                     form tag.
>>                     Jamie
>>
>>                     -- 
>>                     James Teh
>>                     Executive Director, NV Access Limited
>>                     Ph +61 7 3149 3306 <tel:%2B61%207%203149%203306>
>>                     www.nvaccess.org <http://www.nvaccess.org/>
>>                     Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess
>>                     <http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess>
>>                     Twitter: @NVAccess
>>                     SIP: jamie@nvaccess.org <mailto:jamie@nvaccess.org>____
>>
>>                 __ __
>>
>>
>>
>>             ____
>>
>>             -- ____
>>
>>             James Teh____
>>
>>             Executive Director, NV Access Limited____
>>
>>             Ph +61 7 3149 3306 <tel:%2B61%207%203149%203306>____
>>
>>             www.nvaccess.org <http://www.nvaccess.org/>____
>>
>>             Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess
>>             <http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess>____
>>
>>             Twitter: @NVAccess____
>>
>>             SIP: jamie@nvaccess.org <mailto:jamie@nvaccess.org>____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>
>>
>>     ____
>>
>>     -- ____
>>
>>     James Teh____
>>
>>     Executive Director, NV Access Limited____
>>
>>     Ph +61 7 3149 3306 <tel:%2B61%207%203149%203306>____
>>
>>     www.nvaccess.org <http://www.nvaccess.org>____
>>
>>     Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess <http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess>____
>>
>>     Twitter: @NVAccess____
>>
>>     SIP: jamie@nvaccess.org <mailto:jamie@nvaccess.org>____
>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
> Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
> 

Received on Thursday, 25 August 2016 14:37:58 UTC