W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-aria@w3.org > February 2016

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

From: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 14:16:55 -0600
Cc: James Teh <jamie@nvaccess.org>, Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>, IA2 List <Accessibility-ia2@lists.linux-foundation.org>, ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BFAE0A95-723C-4EC7-8658-2D7B589B2E41@gmail.com>
To: Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>
Copy what Joanie stated. This would also help as we start moving toward a common api in ARIA 2.0. 

I would prefer that platforms diverge less. It sounds like it will not break anything for you. 

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger




> On Feb 23, 2016, at 12:34 PM, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com> wrote:
> 
> Hey Jamie.
> 
> At least on my platform, getting all of the ROLE_LANDMARK objects (e.g.
> for a list of landmarks dialog) via AtspiCollection is a lot more
> performant than getting all the elements and then filtering out the
> non-landmarks (99-100% of the set) via object attribute. The xml-roles
> value remains useful for those cases where it matters what type of
> landmark a particular element happens to be.
> 
> If you don't have a similar advantage on your platform, then I guess the
> justification is the desire to keep our completely different platforms
> as aligned as possible. And if you accept ROLE_LANDMARK, the next time
> one of us has to compromise/give in, it will be my turn. <grins>
> 
> --joanie
> 
> On 02/22/2016 08:37 PM, James Teh wrote:
>> Hi Rich,
>> 
>> I don't necessarily have an objection to introducing a new role, but I
>> also don't quite follow the justification.
>> 
>> I follow that region became a subclass of landmark. However, I don't
>> follow how this changes the "landmark" role; if anything, it changes the
>> "region" role. And even then, the region role never had its own IA2 role
>> in the first place. Furthermore, since we have to look at xml-roles
>> anyway (as we always have, despite my objection years ago, but that's an
>> entirely different story), I don't follow how the landmark role is useful.
>> 
>> I'm sure I'm missing something here. Can you enlighten me? :)
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Jamie
>> 
>> On 20/02/2016 9:37 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>>> Hi Alex, 
>>> 
>>> I am following up on this earlier discussion regarding needing an
>>> IA2_LANDMARK_ROLE 
>>> 
>>> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2016-January/001993.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A fundamental change from ARIA 1.0 is we now have the role “region” as
>>> a descendant of a role of landmark:
>>> 
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#region
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So, this is the revised set of landmarks:
>>> 
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#landmark_roles
>>> 
>>> The reason for this is developers have been using labelledy regions as
>>> landmarks and in HTML5 we now have a section landmark which will
>>> default to a role of “region” if it has a label on it. 
>>> 
>>> Given this change we would like this a new IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK that
>>> matches the landmark role we now have in ATK/ATSPI. The xml-roles
>>> attribute would take the value of the actual role as we know. 
>>> 
>>> Is there any objection to introducing this new role in IA2?
>>> 
>>> We are trying to lock down ARIA 1.1 and this is one of the issues we
>>> need to address. 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Rich
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
>>> Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
>> 
>> -- 
>> James Teh
>> Executive Director, NV Access Limited
>> Ph +61 7 3149 3306
>> www.nvaccess.org
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess
>> Twitter: @NVAccess
>> SIP: jamie@nvaccess.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
>> Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
>> 
> 


Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2016 20:17:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:58:20 UTC