Re: Action-2079 + Action-2080 (was Re: ACTION-2080: Draft aria spec text limiting the use of role password on editable objects)

Doh! Thanks Joseph, this helps.  I'm fine with this then.

JF

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
wrote:

> FWIW, Figure 1 in the spec makes the distinction between "user agent" as
> "browser", and "assistive technology" as something else:
> https://w3c.github.io/aria/aria/aria.html#desc_contractmodel
>
> On 2016-06-09 3:11 PM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
> > Hey John.
> >
> > In answer to your question, I mean 'user agent' in the 'browser' sense.
> > After all, in an accessibility-API-based world, ATs are given accessible
> > objects with accessible roles. Thus specifying that an AT MUST ignore
> > something it might not have any way of knowing is a non-starter.
> >
> > I will leave it up to the group regarding whether or not it is necessary
> > to specifically say "browser" or "web engine" or something to that
> effect.
> >
> > --joanie
> >
> > On 06/09/2016 02:55 PM, John Foliot wrote:
> >> Hi Joanie,
> >>
> >> I'm sorry to do this to you, however...
> >>
> >>> User agents MUST ignore the password role when it is applied to
> >> elements which are neither editable nor explicitly marked as read only.
> >>
> >> Does this then mean that in a code sample like this: <img src=""
> >> role="password"> that the *browser* (a.k.a. user agent) MUST NOT convey
> >> the role and value to the AAPI? Or that user agents that rely on the
> >> AAPI's (a.k.a. screen readers) MUST ignore the fact that this DOM node
> >> has been 'tagged' as a password widget?
> >>
> >> I'm generally in favor of the W3C's 'user agent' language, but in this
> >> instance I think more specific clarity would be helpful.
> >>
> >> JF
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com
> >> <mailto:jdiggs@igalia.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     Hi all.
> >>
> >>     During today's ARIA concall we discussed my text for action-2080 in
> >>     relation to the text Michael wrote for action-2079. The conclusion
> was
> >>     that the following sentence should be added to my existing text:
> >>
> >>     "Host languages SHOULD document that the password role can only be
> used
> >>     on elements that are editable and not permanently read only."
> >>
> >>     That has been done [1] in my branch [2]. The new proposed text to
> >>     address both action-2079 and action-2080 is as follows:
> >>
> >>     <quote>
> >>     Authors SHOULD limit the use of the password role to single-line
> >>     elements which are editable. Authors MAY use the password role on
> >>     elements which are not currently editable due to
> application-specific
> >>     conditions. However, in that instance, authors MUST indicate that
> the
> >>     element is read only by setting aria-readonly to true or using the
> >>     appropriate native host language attribute. User agents MUST ignore
> the
> >>     password role when it is applied to elements which are neither
> editable
> >>     nor explicitly marked as read only. Host languages SHOULD document
> that
> >>     the password role can only be used on elements that are editable
> and not
> >>     permanently read only.
> >>     </quote>
> >>
> >>     --joanie
> >>
> >>     [1] https://github.com/w3c/aria/commit/9636157
> >>     [2] https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/action-2080/aria/aria.html#password
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> John Foliot
> >> Principal Accessibility Consultant
> >> Deque Systems Inc.
> >> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
> >>
> >> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
> >
>
>
> --
> ;;;;joseph.
>
> 'Die Wahrheit ist Irgendwo da Draußen. Wieder.'
>                  - C. Carter -
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion