Re: aria-linktype (Was: DPUB and SVG Graphics mappings for Webkit)

The group agreed to leave these in the doc- prefixed namespace. The reason is that we are going to look at annotations again in ARIA 2.0 and we don’t want to have to content with possible conflicts. 

If you recall, we moved this to 2.0 because the Microsoft engineer who asked for the annotations moved off to another job. Additionally, there is discussions regarding annotations in a separate group that we will need to synchronize with post 1.1. 

Rich

> On Feb 25, 2016, at 10:27 AM, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> On Feb 25, 2016, at 6:18 AM, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Are these roles in DPUB or Core? 
> 
> Each role should be considered separately.
> 
>> Every AT user that heard about aria-linktype was thrilled and expressed interest in seeing linktype in core.  Perhaps, it is worth exploring why AT users find this to be something that would be valuable in Core.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> The DPUB part of DPUB-ARIA is at a workshop today, so we cannot join the ARIA call.
>> Tzviya
>> 
>> Tzviya Siegman
>> Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead
>> Wiley
>> 201-748-6884
>> tsiegman@wiley.com 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:richschwer@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 8:52 AM
>> To: James Craig
>> Cc: Chris Fleizach; ARIA Working Group; public-svg-a11y@w3.org; W3C PF - DPUB Joint Task Force
>> Subject: Re: aria-linktype (Was: DPUB and SVG Graphics mappings for Webkit)
>> 
>> Alright, 
>> 
>> We will keep these as roles. Just let us know what the mappings should be for AXAPI.
>> 
>> Rich
>> 
>>> On Feb 25, 2016, at 1:20 AM, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 8:03 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The link types are dual-purpose. The digital publishing industry wants to use the dpub ARIA semantics which originated from EPUB structural semantics which originated from DAISY book readers. The dpub industry would use these properties to drive styling, etc. of books.
>>> 
>>> Given this reason, it appears there is no benefit to aria-linktype over the standard role approach, since the CSS selectors used for the attribute and role variants are of equal specificity:
>>> 
>>> [aria-linktype*="bibliography"] { /* bibliography link styles using a 
>>> new attr */ }  [role~="doc-bibliographylink"] { /* bibliography link 
>>> styles using a new role */ }
>>> 
>>>> If these were localized that would make this very challenging.
>>> 
>>> Fair. aria-roledescription would definitely not work as a styling hook.
>>> 
>>>> … So, these aria properties are designed to allow the digital publisher to apply the structural semantics they need to drive the authoring process while getting accessibility for free.
>>> 
>>> Assuming that new role descriptions are the only expected end-user UI change, implementing these as roles would be trivial and provide the same benefits to users and for EPUB styling hooks. This is more or less adding one new ENUM and a Loc string. Implementing these as a new attribute would be more work for implementors and authors, and I'm not seeing any benefit. 
>>> 
>>> James
>>> 
>>>> Rich
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 2:10 AM, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Questions about aria-linktype:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. What is the value to the user or AT for having these different linktypes enumerated versus using a freeform aria-roledescription?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. These values seem very specific to DPUB. Couldn't these be DPUB subroles of link in the DPUB spec? doc-commentlink, doc-footnotelink, etc? I think it'd be more clear there, and decrease the implementation complexity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3. Using an enumerated taxonomy doesn't seem to provide any benefit over subroles. Is there any?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 4. What is the end-user expectation? Presumably you expect a role description change, like "footnote link"? Anything else?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> James
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:05 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes. that is the dpub module. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Note: Many places where we have references (which are link types) we are introducing an aria-linktype versus having additional roles for links. Here is the branch proposal for that:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/action-2006/aria/aria.html#aria-linktyp
>>>>>> e
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 8:11 PM, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What's the current URL for the ARIA graphics module? Not the AAM doc, just the spec.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I see graphics.html and graphics2.html in source control.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Presumably this is the current spec draft for DPUB?
>>>>>>> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/dpub.html
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Feb 19, 2016, at 2:36 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> James, Chris,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I want to make sure we have adequate mappings for the DPUB ARIA 
>>>>>>>> roles and the SVG Graphics roles in Webkit for Mac Platforms
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/dpub-aam/dpub-aam.html#mapping_
>>>>>>>> role_table
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/graphics-aam/graphics-aam.html
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Don’t pay attention to the current mappings. Please just tell us what you want. These are place holders. I don’t know if you have been following the aria discussion but we are looking at introducing an aria-linktype for the different types of links that are in EPUB so that we can still use things like AXLink and not proliferate link roles. 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Would you please help us define these mappings?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>> 
>>

Received on Friday, 26 February 2016 13:37:43 UTC