RE: HTML5 default implicit semantics

Steve Lee [mailto:steve@opendirective.com] wrote:
> 
> So ARIA is for describing existing UI elements only? Allow in AT to transform it?

Not exactly. ARIA is used to communicate the Role, State and Property of interactive components to the Accessibility APIs - the screen readers then "transform" that information into the format requested by the end user. For example, once the information is communicated, most screen reader software today can output that information using either a text-to-speech engine OR to a Braille output bar: different modalities (Audio versus Tactile), same content. (I may be splitting hairs here when I cringe at "describing", as it is more communicating than describing - for example I suspect that blind users don't care about the color of a slider widget - which would be a description - but rather are concerned about the functionality of it: It's property is "slider", it's role is "volume adjustment" and it's state is "50%"). 

>From the W3C website:
<start>
Technical Solutions 

More specifically, WAI-ARIA provides a framework for adding attributes to identify features for user interaction, how they relate to each other, and their current state. WAI-ARIA describes new navigation techniques to mark regions and common Web structures as menus, primary content, secondary content, banner information, and other types of Web structures. For example, with WAI-ARIA, developers can identify regions of pages and enable keyboard users to easily move among regions, rather than having to press Tab many times.

WAI-ARIA also includes technologies to map controls, Ajax live regions, and events to accessibility application programming interfaces (APIs), including custom controls used for rich Internet applications. WAI-ARIA techniques apply to widgets such as buttons, drop-down lists, calendar functions, tree controls (for example, expandable menus), and others.

WAI-ARIA provides Web authors with the following:
 • Roles to describe the type of widget presented, such as "menu", "treeitem", "slider", and "progressmeter"
 • Roles to describe the structure of the Web page, such as headings, regions, and tables (grids)
 • Properties to describe the state widgets are in, such as "checked" for a check box, or "haspopup" for a menu.
 • Properties to define live regions of a page that are likely to get updates (such as stock quotes), as well as an interruption policy for those updates—for example, critical updates may be presented in an alert dialog box, and incidental updates occur within the page
 • Properties for drag-and-drop that describe drag sources and drop targets
 • A way to provide keyboard navigation for the Web objects and events, such as those mentioned above
</end>
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria) 


> Hmm. So How will the work By Mozilla, Microsoft and others on javascript
> interactions with a11y APIs impact that? I'd say it will open it right up to
> experimental approaches including those that manipulate the DOM (which I
> think is what you are indicating there is resistance to, at least for built in
> semantics).

Actually, no, I don't think the resistance is to DOM manipulation, but rather to UI manipulation - it's a visual design thing mostly (as I understand the browser vendors concerns). 

I'll give you an example: we have in HTML5 the @required attribute, which when applied to a form input then allows for some rudimentary testing *by the browser* (i.e. if it is blank, the browser spits out the error message, with no scripting required). However, we also have aria-required, which communicates the same fact to the Accessibility API, but has no impact on the UI. While it may seem intuitive to try to more closely align the behavior of the two attributes, there is in fact resistance to this idea, focused primarily on visual design considerations. Whether this is right or wrong is not the issue, it is what it is. (see: http://john.foliot.ca/required-inputs/ for more details and a better elaboration on this point)


> Scriptability is good in my book. "Embrace the caos" and make life better for
> users. :) I guess they are concerned about adding further complexity to the
> predefined browser behaviour; scripting is someone else's problem.

Yes, I believe this would be grouped under "Web Components", and work in that area (and related accessibility concerns) is happening in the Web Platform Working Group (the successor to the HTML5 Working Group). Leonie Watson and Chaals McCathieNevile are 2 of the Working Group chairs, and I have confidence that they are watching this space carefully. 


> 
> > Personally, I still hope to look to more native methods to address many of
> these issues, resorting to coga-* attributes as a last resort solution, rather than
> a first-pass one. My other fear is that by collecting all of our "accessibility
> solutions" under an ARIA banner, we perpetuate a ghetto-ization of accessibility
> - a perpetuated "us and them" mentality, rather than just good practice that aids
> all, irrespective of their individual needs or how they identify (which is how *I*
> see personalization ultimately playing-out BTW).
> 
> What do you mean by more native? Mechanisms baked into HTML to alow
> suitable modifications? Bring it on :)

Sort of. Allow me to illustrate: 
Different groups within the larger "accessibility" space have different needs, based upon their disability (ies). When it comes to semantics, I think most of us would agree that using <h1> (the "native" construct) is preferable to using <div role="heading" aria-level="1">, even though semantically they are equivalent. So, broadly speaking it is preferable to use native semantics over added semantics (well, at least to me), and ARIA was created to allow authors to back-fill or stop-gap holes in their "Dynamic HTML" that was creating interaction problems for screen reader users, but not to _replace_ native semantic constructs.

Another example of using a "native" construct is related to <video>. Here, deaf users will require captions to be able to fully engage with the video content. The "native" HTML5 solution for that was to introduce the <track> element, along with the @kind attribute, and one of those @kind values was captions (another was description - envisioned for, for example, sign language tracks to augment the video stream). I don't think I need to remind everyone how captions benefit more than just deaf users (the TVs in a sports-bar scenario being a common example here). Thus, I posit that it would have been a bad design decision to suggest minting an aria-captions attribute, even though using the "all our accessibility eggs in one ARIA basket" argument would support doing just that. I am suggesting that we think about this for COGA support as well - there are many things here that will benefit more than just those clinically defined as "cognitively disabled". (Man, I so truly hate labels).

> 
> > I remain of the opinion that we should be engaging now with other Working
> Groups within the W3C (for example, perhaps Web Annotations WG -
> http://www.w3.org/annotation/), sharing our needs and use-cases and working
> collaboratively with them for more native solutions. But that's just me.
> 
> +1 Given the concerns about adoption we'll need as many people as
> possible singing from the same hymn sheet (as long as it is pro coga - heh).

Agreed. All the more reason we engage with them in finding solutions, as opposed to showing up with a solution and then somehow trying to figure out how to get them to adopt that solution - one that they were never part of crafting in the first place. As much as I wish it wasn't so, we simply don't have the juice to be making demands on anyone - we need to work collaboratively. It is my experience that when you approach engineers with a problem statement, and a clearly defined outcome requirement, they can come back with solutions that we may never have contemplated, but solutions that scale better in *their* environment.

> Trouble is there will be resistance and delay. So on ballance, I think the current
> approach of getting a clean initial position together make sense.

I believe the resistance would be mostly centered on us trying to impose a solution. As I spoke with many non-accessibility people at TPAC last week, I was struck by the desire from others to fully understand our needs, so that those other working groups could make informed decisions. Having well-formed and well-articulated problem statements and use cases is critical; having an example (perhaps with a proof of concept solution) is beneficial, as long as we remain open to alternatives to solving the problem statements, which (I believe) brings me full circle - we need to work with the other groups collaboratively so that everyone is "happy" with the final solution(s).

JF

Received on Friday, 6 November 2015 17:24:04 UTC