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

I am still not in favor of a 1.2. I only reluctantly agreed to a 1.1, which took longer than we had hoped. We need to get started on 2.0 to align with all the architectural changes in the web platform since ARIA was designed.

From: Matt King [mailto:a11ythinker@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:42 PM
To: 'Richard Schwerdtfeger' <richschwer@gmail.com>
Cc: 'White, Jason J' <jjwhite@ets.org>; 'Fred Esch' <fesch@us.ibm.com>; 'Amelia Bellamy-Royds' <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>; 'Steven Faulkner' <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>; 'James Craig' <jcraig@apple.com>; 'Joanmarie Diggs' <jdiggs@igalia.com>; 'Michiel Bijl' <michiel@agosto.nl>; 'Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group' <public-aria@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Proposal and Justification for ARIA 1.2 (Was: text role removal)

Agree, let’s focus on doing a fabulous job of shipping what we have.

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:richschwer@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 12:30 PM
To: Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com<mailto:a11ythinker@gmail.com>>
Cc: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>; Fred Esch <fesch@us.ibm.com<mailto:fesch@us.ibm.com>>; Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com<mailto:amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>>; Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com<mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com>>; James Craig <jcraig@apple.com<mailto:jcraig@apple.com>>; Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com<mailto:jdiggs@igalia.com>>; Michiel Bijl <michiel@agosto.nl<mailto:michiel@agosto.nl>>; Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group <public-aria@w3.org<mailto:public-aria@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Proposal and Justification for ARIA 1.2 (Was: text role removal)

I am thinking this needs to be 1.2 vs. the graphics module. This is going to take a lot more discussion and we are trying to lock down SVG graphics as well as ARIA 1.1.

I would much rather the team work on the test suite and the existing work off our plate. James has made his case for an ARIA 1.2. The group can vote on that later after we have spoken with the TAG and Web Components.

Rich


On Aug 12, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com<mailto:a11ythinker@gmail.com>> wrote:

Screen reader users care about fonts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Matt

From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 8:47 AM
To: Fred Esch <fesch@us.ibm.com<mailto:fesch@us.ibm.com>>; Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com<mailto:a11ythinker@gmail.com>>
Cc: 'Amelia Bellamy-Royds' <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com<mailto:amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>>; 'Steven Faulkner' <faulkner.steve@gmail.com<mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com>>; 'James Craig' <jcraig@apple.com<mailto:jcraig@apple.com>>; 'Joanmarie Diggs' <jdiggs@igalia.com<mailto:jdiggs@igalia.com>>; 'Michiel Bijl' <michiel@agosto.nl<mailto:michiel@agosto.nl>>; 'Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group' <public-aria@w3.org<mailto:public-aria@w3.org>>; 'Richard Schwerdtfeger' <richschwer@gmail.com<mailto:richschwer@gmail.com>>
Subject: RE: Proposal and Justification for ARIA 1.2 (Was: text role removal)



From: Fred Esch [mailto:fesch@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 11:32 AM
I disagree with this statement at least for SVG.
Regardless of how the graphic is drawn, we should never hide the fact that it is a graphic. That information is very important.

Some SVG authoring tools generate path elements for everything instead of using the full suite of drawing primitives; and that is just how they work. In these cases, there is no attempt by the author to use a symbol for text, nor is the author avoiding using the text element. In these cases, telling a user that the text comes from a graphic/path (or n-paths) is not beneficial, nor does it covey what a sighted user sees.
[Jason] I’ve been thinking about this, and I can think of very few situations in which this information would be of benefit to the user. There might be a stylized font on the page that might be referred to in a conversation between a screen reader user and a colleague, but what is desirable in that case is proper font identification, not merely an indication that the text (and it could be the entire text within a given construct) is rendered as a graphic.

In some cases, like when the author chooses a unusual font that is unlikely to be on a user's machine, turning text into a path may be the only way to ensure the visual appearance of the text is maintained on the user's machine. Again, because it is captured as a path element is not important to any user, sighted on not.
[Jason] Agreed, but having the font information could sometimes be useful. Maybe that’s an issue for the CSS Accessibility Task Force, especially if they’re planning to disclose a subset of CSS properties to accessibility APIs.


________________________________
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.