- From: Jason Kiss <jason@accessibleculture.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:29:30 +1300
- To: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>
- Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, Rich Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, David Bolter <dbolter@mozilla.com>, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown.idi@gmail.com>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <public-pfwg@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Cool. Thanks, Alex. I'll file a bug for the removal of the BSTR advice from the MSAA+IA2 column. On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Jason. > > Neither MSAA nor IA2 suggest better than BSTR hack to expose semantics of > those elements. That means either generic roles work for those elements just > fine or there's no much well-known examples where generic role fails. If the > latter case is true then the way IA2 evolves will be something different > than BSTR hack I think. So I think I agree there's no need to make the spec > saying to use BSTR hack. However we have two implementations of BSTR > approach, I'm not aware of other implementations that don't make it. So if > the spec says something that nobody follows then it doens't really make > sense. Also this kind of forking will complicate the spec. > Thanks. > ALe.x > > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:13 AM, jason@accessibleculture.org > <jason@accessibleculture.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Alexander, >> >> On 4/03/2014, at 10:50 am, Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi. I don't see any practical benefits of dropping BSTR hack. Also I would >> avoid to wake up a sleeping dog, I'm not sure who may have dependencies on >> it. >> >> >> I guess the question for me is more whether or not the mapping guide >> should be specifying and recommending a hack that is implemented by one or >> two browsers (are there others that use this hack?) and discouraged by the >> keepers of the MSAA spec. I've understood the guide to be recommending >> mappings first, and documenting what certain browsers do second, and only to >> the degree that what these certain browsers do aligns with or informs the >> recommended mappings. >> >> Also, even if the mapping guide dropped the hack, that wouldn't force >> Firefox to do so. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jason >> >> >> Thanks. >> Alexander. >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:18 PM, jason@accessibleculture.org >> <jason@accessibleculture.org> wrote: >>> >>> Looking for folks' opinions on how we relate, in the HTML to >>> accessibility API mappings, Firefox and Chrome's use of VARIANT to return >>> the tag name as string (BSTR) for elements without established roles in >>> MSAA. >>> >>> I think we had decided at one point that since this approach isn't >>> "described by the MSAA specification", we wouldn't indicate or promote it as >>> a preferred mapping in the actual mapping tables, but instead just include a >>> note about it [1]. The note exists [2], but we still have this use of BSTR >>> noted in the MSAA + IA2 mappings themselves, for example, see the mapping >>> for abbr [3]. >>> >>> Am I right in thinking, one, that Mozilla is looking at dropping the >>> "BSTR hack" [4], and two, that the individual element mappings for MSAA + >>> IA2 shouldn't include this use of BSTR? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16769#c3 >>> [2] >>> http://rawgithub.com/w3c/html-api-map/master/index.html#use-of-msaa-variant-by-some-user-agents >>> [3] http://rawgithub.com/w3c/html-api-map/master/index.html#el-abbr >>> [4] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=798492 >>> >>> Jason Kiss >>> jason@accessibleculture.org >>> http://www.accessibleculture.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 21:29:58 UTC