- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:33:25 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
- CC: PFWG Public Comments <public-pfwg-comments@w3.org>
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