- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 01:49:26 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13508 Travis Leithead [MSFT] <travil@microsoft.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |travil@microsoft.com Assignee|dave.null@w3.org |travil@microsoft.com --- Comment #4 from Travis Leithead [MSFT] <travil@microsoft.com> --- (In reply to comment #0) > HTML5 should provide true support for tri-state checkboxes and menu items > (those with states of checked, unchecked, and > indeterminate/mixed/undefined), as well as other controls with > indeterminate/mixed/undefined state. This will let user agents provide > standardized user interface for such controls, and let assistive technology > provide alternative input and output for them. Not providing this would mean > authors and developers would still have to implement custom controls and > behaviors for an extremely common feature, and these would not be compatible > with assistive technology. The major problem here seems to be that assistive technology isn't [yet] equipped to deal with HTML5's indeterminate checkbox behavior. The reason why this is likely hard to do, is because an AT can't know just based on the markup, whether the behavior of the indeterminate checkbox should be truly tri-state (e.g., unset -> indeterminate -> set (repeat)) or simple pseudo tri-state (e.g., indeterminate -> set -> unset -> set -> unset (etc.)). The web developer can model either behavior with JavaScript with the current HTML5 control. > We recognize that for checkbox controls there are backward compatibility > issues with the Boolean checked attribute; this could be addressed by any of > a number of means, such as providing a new attribute to indicate a > indeterminate/mixed/undefined state or changing the semantics and behaviors > of the existing indeterminate attribute so that it was no longer defined as > being purely cosmetic. The current pseudo-tri-state checkbox is itself a very useful concept, not one that we'd like to change. Having said that, the true tri-state control is also very useful--though I disagree with the use cases cited in this bug (the behavior for setting the checkbox back to indeterminate to mean "undo" is probably not right). As noted, a true-tri-state control could be added in several ways: 1) a new element (e.g., <threebox></threebox>), 2) extending the <input> types (e.g., <input type="tristatebox">), or 3) signaling the tri-state behavior to existing checkboxes (e.g., <input type="checkbox" tristate>). I don't really like the first option because it introduces a new element that is very, very similar to the input type=checkbox in so many respects. It also has to define a content model (which would probably be similar to <input>'s whereby legacy user agents would handle the inner content as fallback behavior (into which a real <input type="checkbox"> would need to be placed). This seems like a lot of unnecessary duplication to me--though others might argue. Techniques 2 and 3 are virtually identical in the set of problems they'd need to overcome. Basically, the OM for the <input type=checkbox> has 4 states today for a pseudo-indeterminate checkbox: State A: indeterminate + checked State B: indeterminate + not checked State C: not indeterminate + checked State D: not indeterminate + not checked The user experience for a true tri-state checkbox would need to cycle among three of these four states. Consider two example cycles: * D->A->C (repeat) - where the indeterminate state is more truthy than falsy (for reads on the .checked IDL attribute) * D->B->C (repeat) - where the indeterminate state is more falsy Either cycle behavior may be desireable depending on the fallback scenario for user agents that wouldn't support the new tri-state control. A solution to the above cycle choice problem may be that the use of the "checked" content attribute is taken as a hint to the UA to use either state A (if checked is present) or state B (if checked is not present). Also, other than the tri-state mode trigger, you'd want yet another content attribute "indeterminate" (and corresponding "defaultIndeterminate" IDL attribute) to hint the initial state of the UI to be indeterminate. I think this is a great opportunity for an extension spec for integrating true Tri-state checkboxes in HTML5.1. There are still a lot of potential issues to work out, however. Greg, are you interested in developing an extension spec for this feature? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 15 February 2013 01:49:29 UTC