RE: 7-day CfC: notes on option, treeitem, and spinbutton about children presentational - closes 15 June

The problem here is the API mapping for these and child roles and what ATs expose.

How is a user agent or AT supposed to provide access to something within such a role if the spec says this is not allowed? Because, where in the spec does it say this?

This is what user agents and ATs are building their support around, and this misunderstanding by what authors expect to happen as opposed to what actually does happen are not the same because of this issue, specifically what is meant by a composite widget versus what is not.

So this is a huge problem right now, and it needs to be solved somehow.

Simply ignoring the issue by not saying children presentational on some roles will not solve this problem, because still these are not composite widgets according to the spec that user agents and ATs follow to provide access to end users.


Bryan Garaventa
Accessibility Fellow
SSB BART Group, Inc.
bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com
415.624.2709 (o)
www.SSBBartGroup.com

From: Fred Esch [mailto:fesch@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 12:03 PM
To: Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>
Cc: Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group <public-aria@w3.org>
Subject: RE: 7-day CfC: notes on option, treeitem, and spinbutton about children presentational - closes 15 June


Bryan,

I do not believe interactive widget vs composite widget is the heart of the issue. For me, the issue is how difficult is it for developers create structures with ARIA markup? For authors sake, I would not like to see a proliferation of roles because the structure content is presentational vs interactive content vs complex widget. Hopefully, an author could use a single recognizable logical role independent of the type of content in the structure.

Regards,

Fred Esch
Watson, IBM, W3C Accessibility

[IBM Watson]

Watson Release Management and Quality



[Inactive hide details for Bryan Garaventa ---06/10/2016 02:20:32 PM---What appears to me to be at the heart of this issue, is t]Bryan Garaventa ---06/10/2016 02:20:32 PM---What appears to me to be at the heart of this issue, is the question "what is meant by an interactiv

From: Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>>
To: Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com<mailto:jdiggs@igalia.com>>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org<mailto:cooper@w3.org>>
Cc: ARIA Admin <public-aria-admin@w3.org<mailto:public-aria-admin@w3.org>>
Date: 06/10/2016 02:20 PM
Subject: RE: 7-day CfC: notes on option, treeitem, and spinbutton about children presentational - closes 15 June

________________________________



What appears to me to be at the heart of this issue, is the question "what is meant by an interactive widget that is not composite?"

So for the record, can somebody here please define what is meant by a widget that is not a composite widget?

This is very important, because it looks like the primary opposition here is the assumption that they should do the opposite of what the spec actually says they do.


Bryan Garaventa
Accessibility Fellow
SSB BART Group, Inc.
bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>
415.624.2709 (o)
www.SSBBartGroup.com<http://www.SSBBartGroup.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Joanmarie Diggs [mailto:jdiggs@igalia.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 7:06 PM
To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org<mailto:cooper@w3.org>>
Cc: ARIA Admin <public-aria-admin@w3.org<mailto:public-aria-admin@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: 7-day CfC: notes on option, treeitem, and spinbutton about children presentational - closes 15 June

Explicit +1 for wider review of this topic.
--joanie

On 06/09/2016 09:04 PM, Michael Cooper wrote:
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Accessible Rich Internet
> Applications (ARIA) Working Group regarding the following resolution
> of the ARIA Working group:
>
>     Add editorial note to option, treeitem, and spinbutton roles that
>     their "children are presentational" status is provisional
>
>
>     Background
>
> This was approved by the participants of the 9 June 2016
> teleconference, and further context is available in the minutes:
>
>     https://www.w3.org/2016/06/09-aria-minutes.html#item02
>
> Note this resolution does not close discussion on the issue of whether
> these roles ultimately should have the children presentational
> restriction, or whether further engineering is needed, and if so in
> what time frame. This edit supports wider review of the topic.
>
>
>     Action
>
> This CfC is now open for objection, comment, as well as statements of
> support via email. Silence will be interpreted as support, though
> messages of support are certainly welcome.
>
> If you object to this proposal, or have comments concerning it, please
> respond by replying on list to this message no later than 23:59
> (midnight) Boston Time, Wednesday, 15 June 2016. For objections only,
> please copy the main aria@w3.org<mailto:aria@w3.org> list to allow technical discussion of
> the objection to happen there.
>
>
>     Process
>
> This CfC is conducted per the ARIA WG decision policy:
>
>     https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/decision-policy
>
> I am issuing this CfC as acting chair, but Rich will record the formal
> ratification if passed.
>
> Michael
>