Re: ACTION-1490 proposal says good bye to the "inline" notion for combobox

Good point Joseph. One of the things I have been wrestling with is the fact that what is being launched (if it is not a descendant - hence aria-activedescendant) is the fact that what gets launched must indeed be a modal window. 

This would get us away from having to apply aria-activedescendant on a combobox in these instances however it needs to be clear that if aria-controls is these are housed in modal windows that are controlled by combobox. 

I am seeing other use cases in IBM where even expandable landmarks are mad “modal”. I think we need to discuss modality in this scenario. Clearly aria-activedescendant will not work in these scenarios (pop up control) as it is not a descendant. This really is not any different that having a live region controlled by another part of the page. If it is not owned then the focus must be determined by the modal window or object with in the window/container. 

Another option is to place these things in a dialog box where the combobox launches a dialog box with objects within. The dialog box MUST be modal. 

Rich

> On Feb 11, 2016, at 10:19 AM, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> On 2016-02-08 10:42 AM, Bryan Garaventa wrote:
>> 
>> That is not true. This is why we support aria-activedescendant on role=”combobox”. Please test the following implementation that uses this technique.
>> 
>> http://whatsock.com/tsg/Coding%20Arena/ARIA%20Comboboxes/ARIA%20Comboboxes%20(Simulated,%20Readonly)/demo.htm <http://whatsock.com/tsg/Coding%20Arena/ARIA%20Comboboxes/ARIA%20Comboboxes%20%28Simulated,%20Readonly%29/demo.htm>
>> 
> 
> Warning: sarcasm, ahead.
> 
> You have implemented a combobox that uses aria-activedescendant without aria-owns.  What is the active descendant a descendant of? Not the combobox, actually.
> 
> Does this mean we need to re-write the definition of aria-activedescendant?
> 
> :-)
> 
> -- 
> ;;;;joseph.
> 
> 'Die Wahrheit ist Irgendwo da Draußen. Wieder.'
>                 - C. Carter -
>

Received on Thursday, 11 February 2016 17:07:42 UTC