Response to your comments on Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0

Dear Sailesh Panchang:



Thank you for your comments on the 24 February 2009 Last Call Working
Draft of Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-wai-aria-20090224/). The Protocols and
Formats Working Group has reviewed all comments received on the draft. We
would like to know whether we have understood your comments correctly and
whether you are satisfied with our resolutions.



Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to us
by 1 February 2010 to say whether you accept them or to discuss additional
concerns you have with our response. You can respond in the following
ways:



* If you have a W3C account, we request that you respond online at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/comments/acknowledge?document_version_id=1;



* Else, by email to public-pfwg-comments@w3.org (be sure to reference our
comment ID so we can track your response). Note that this list is publicly
archived.



Please see below for the text of comments that you submitted and our
resolutions to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the archived
copy of your original comment on
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/, and may also
include links to the relevant changes in the Accessible Rich Internet
Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 editors' draft at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/20091214/.



Due to the scope of changes made in response to comments on the Last Call
Working Draft of WAI-ARIA, we are returning the specification to Working
Draft status. We will shortly publish a public "stabilization draft" of
WAI-ARIA and updated Working Drafts of the accompanying documents. While
these versions will not incorporate further discussion based on your
acknowledgement of our response to your comments, we will work with you on
your feedback as part of our preparation for the following version. You are
also welcome to submit new comments on the new public versions in addition
to sending your acknowledgement of our response to your previous comments.



Note that if you still strongly disagree with our resolution on an issue,
you have the opportunity to file a formal objection (according to 3.3.2 of
the W3C Process, at
http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews)
to public-pfwg-comments@w3.org. Formal objections will be reviewed during
the candidate recommendation transition meeting with the W3C Director,
unless we can come to agreement with you on a resolution in advance of the
meeting.



Thank you for your time reviewing and sending comments. Though we cannot
always do exactly what each commenter requests, all of the comments are
valuable to the development of Accessible Rich Internet Applications
(WAI-ARIA) 1.0.



Regards,



Janina Sajka, PFWG Chair

Michael Cooper, PFWG Staff Contact


Comment 1: About menuitemradio and menuitemcheckbox
Date: 2009-04-08
Archived at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/2009AprJun/0034.html
Relates to: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-wai-aria-20090224/>
Status: Answered question

-------------
Your comment:
-------------
It is not clear how a menuitemcheckbox role can have menuitemradio as  a
child role or rather,

how  does menuitemradio have a menuitemcheckbox for a parent role?

--------------------------------
Response from the Working Group:
--------------------------------
The reason that menuitemcheckbox is a parent

of menuitemradio is that menuitemradio is really a checkbox menuitem with

the added functionality that within the same menu if another
menuitemradio

is checked it will become unchecked - like a radio button. So it behaves

like a radio as well as a menuitemcheckbox.







----------------------------------------------------------------------


Comment 6: Editorial change request for document accessibility
Date: 2009-03-29
Archived at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/2009JanMar/0032.html
Relates to: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 - 1. Introduction <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-wai-aria-20090224/#intro>
Status: Accepted proposal

-------------
Your comment:
-------------
Please refer to the image for The contract model 

with longdesc=#desc_contractmodel

This longdesc points right to the para above the image and is confusing:
there is no additional explanation/ description for the image other than
that which is already available as  part of document content in the
preceding paragraph. If indeed this is the case than just a short text for
the img is enough as the user would have already read the text in the
preceding para. I tried to activate the longdesc twice and ended up reading
the same paragraph and left me wondering whether it was JAWS misbehaving
with IE 8 or something. I then checked the source code and discovered what
was going on.

--------------------------------
Response from the Working Group:
--------------------------------
We agree and will remove the longdesc reference. Ideally we would use
aria-describedby however WAI-ARIA is not yet a recommendation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Comment 7: ARIA example under 2.2 fails WCAG 2?
Date: 2009-03-29
Archived at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/2009JanMar/0033.html
Relates to: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 - 2.2. WAI-ARIA States and Properties <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-wai-aria-20090224/#introstates>
Status: Accepted proposal

-------------
Your comment:
-------------
Please refer to the example  in the ARIA 1.0 doc at end of section 2.2
which uses

[aria-checked="true"]:before { background-image: url(checked.gif); } 

I did read the note that follows too.



Does this not constitute a failure: F-3 and F-87

F3: Failure of Success Criterion 1.1.1 due to using CSS to include images
that convey important information

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F3.html

F87: Failure of 1.3.1 due to inserting non-decorative content by using
:before and :after pseudo-elements and the 'content' property in CSS

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F87.html

--------------------------------
Response from the Working Group:
--------------------------------
We agree with your assessment as some browsers would remove image. We will
modify the example to address your concern and address the broader high
contrast issue in the WAI-ARIA best practices guide.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


Comment 41: UI Widget and UI element
Date: 2009-04-08
Archived at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/2009AprJun/0033.html
Relates to: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 - 4.3.2. User Input Widgets <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-wai-aria-20090224/#userinput>
Status: Accepted proposal

-------------
Your comment:
-------------
A user interface element is generally understood to mean items like
checkbox, edit box, a button, a link, a menu etc.

As per the glossary for ARIA doc, now widget includes all of these. 

Then under 4.3.2 before listing UI widgets, the sentence uses "elements"
and "widgets":

"Role  act as form elements or other common user interface 

widgets..."

The UIE role (4.3.3) is limited to those elements that apparently do not
collect and maintain user input. Is this the distinction? 

But this distinction in role of UI widget and UI element is not supported
by definition of widget in the glossary.

I see also menuitemcheckbox as a UIE. Does this element not store user
input? A menuitemradio or a menu or a tab also stores user selection or
input.

Why not drop the term "widget" from the doc and  refer to all these items
as UIelements?

And of course: Why is it necessary to categorize role under two groups: 
UI widget and UI element?

--------------------------------
Response from the Working Group:
--------------------------------
We agree this separation is confusing and have simplified this section to
merge User Interface Elements and User Input Widgets into on section simply
called Widgets. We had similar concerns from other reviewers.

Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2009 00:33:27 UTC