W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pfwg@w3.org > September 2013

Re: ARIA Test Cases 86 and 87 are invalid

From: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:42:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+epNscb0acn=ztpNMs28wLBTFvf7Guh_t=F=Z_q4mLR7447kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, David Bolter <dbolter@mozilla.com>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <public-pfwg@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
Hi, Joseph.

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> Two questions.  You wrote (my emphasis):
>
>> when focused
>> item is changed then previously focused (unfocused) item gets
>> aria-selected="false", currently focused item gets
>> aria-selected="true", in other words, *only focused item is selected*.
>
>
> This discussion is within the context of a container that supports
> multiselection -- the second table in section 5.8.3 [1].  If only the
> focused item is selected, that sounds like a single selection scenario.  How
> does "selection follows focus" work in a context where multiple items can be
> selected?

Nothing prevents the mutliselectable container to manage the single
selection, I think, that is the case.

> Secondly, I outlined a script to switch the sense of aria-selected based on
> focus events:
>
>
>> One possibility is if the author adds an onfocus script that sets
>> aria-selected to "true"
>
>
> Does that qualify as a "selection follows focus" scenario?

If number of selected items grows then it doesn't qualify it.

Thank you.
Alex.


>
> --
> ;;;;joseph.
>
>
> 'A: After all, it isn't rocket science.'
> 'K: Right. It's merely computer science.'
>              - J. D. Klaun -
>
Received on Friday, 20 September 2013 13:43:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:26 UTC