- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:33:29 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10618 Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Blocks| |20696 Resolution|FIXED |--- --- Comment #11 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> --- REOPENING: Ian’s solution did not change the "no role" name. He simply re-explained it and in a confusing way. Thus reopening. JUSTIFICATION: (1) The fragment URI (#concept-role-none) hints that a concept is being explained. However, the definition says that "no role" means one thing for features with 'strong native semantics' and another thing for features with a "default implicit ARIA role". This is confusing because: a) the strong table makes clear the it actually list features with a "default implicit ARIA role" (that have the *additional* feature of being "strong native semantics"). Thus, the definition in reality applies to the features with strong native semantics as well. b) as told in bug 20696, if anything specific ought to be said about whether strong native semantics features can take the presentation role, then this should be said inside the section about strong semantics and not in the section about weak/default implicit semantics. (2) The importance of a term that preferably is shared/defined by ARIA too, has increased since I filed this bug, due to the fact that HTML5 and ARIA now use the same definition of "strong native semantics" and "default implicit ARIA role". (Since Ian resolved this bug, those wordings has been equipped with a link to their definitions.) (3) As explained in bug 20696: If anything has to be said about whether features that have "no (ARIA-defined) role" as their strong native semantics can take presentation role too, then this ought to be said inside the section about Strong Native Semantics rather than inside the section about Implicit ARIA semantics. PROPOSAL: #1. Replace "no role" with another wording. Proposed wording: "not an ARIA-defined role" or: "no ARIA-defined role" The term shoud be found together with the the ARIA spec community so the two specs can use a shared definition. #2. Make the text a definition of "not an ARIA-defined role" *alone*! Thus *remove* the explanation of the (possible) consequences for strong vs "weak" semantics. Proposed rewording: ]] The entry "not an ARIA-defined role" means that the user agent has no default mapping to ARIA roles. (However, it probably will have its own mappings to the accessibility layer.) [[ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 16:33:37 UTC