W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-indie-ui@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Testing of Events specification

From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:54:48 -0700
Cc: Indie UI <public-indie-ui@w3.org>
Message-id: <28894436-4500-4C3E-993F-74E1CFEAFD67@apple.com>
To: Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
On Apr 23, 2014, at 11:11 PM, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net> wrote:

> James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:
>> We'll need both, but we can do extensive automated testing of browser
>> internals with synthesized events, and then do a limited set of manual
>> platform-specific tests. This should be much less mind-numbing than the
>> extensive manual testing we had to do for ARIA 1.0.
> That's fine. It also raises an interesting point: what should be the
> conformance requirement for user agents that implement IndieUI events? Must
> they map them to implementation-defined device-specific events suitable to the
> hardware/operating system context, or is it sufficient that they allow
> assistive technologies to invoke them, or should there be no requirement at
> all?
> For applications beyond accessibility, I would like UAs to provide their own
> input handling for IndieUI abstract events, but I wouldn't insist on this as a
> conformance requirement. Allowing for AT to invoke them should be enough.

That is covered to some degree in the Document Scope section, quoted below.

1.3 Document Scope

This section is non-normative.

Decisions regarding which specific physical user interactions (keyboard combinations, gestures, speech, etc.) trigger IndieUI events are explicitly listed as out-of-scope in the Working Group charter. User interface interaction patterns should be designed and defined by each operating system, rather than defined as part of any technical specification.

However, this document lists informative examples of certain keyboard and mouse events that may trigger each IndieUI event. They are listed here purely to aid in clarifying the reader's conceptual understanding of each event, as well as illustrating certain UI differences between platforms. These informative examples are primarily limited to keyboard and mouse events, because those physical modalities have been common in software interaction for decades, and their use is familiar to most readers.

For example, it may be common for the ESC key to trigger a "dismissrequest" event to close a dialog on most systems, but the specification does not require the user agent to use any particular physical event. It is an implementation detail, and left for the developers of each platform or assistive technology to determine whether esc or some other interaction is the most appropriate way to trigger the "dismissrequest" event. As long as there is a documented way for end users to initiate each event, the user agent will be considered a conforming implementation.
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2014 07:55:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:13:21 UTC