- From: Matthew King <mattking@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 10:14:00 -0800
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: "janina@rednote.net" <janina@rednote.net>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <public-pfwg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <OF3ECC049E.355C0C73-ON88257DA4.0063775E-88257DA4.006428ED@notes.na.collabserv.c>
Shane,
You are clearly looking at a different version/build. How do I get to it?
It sounds like the one you are looking at does not have problems 1 or 4
from my list with the heading-level issues on section headings and notes.
I was using the rawgit link in Janina's call for consensus:
https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/eaf032dc62e0dc3c25b76db0f2300f972eff6977/aria/aria.html
Matt King
IBM Senior Technical Staff Member
I/T Chief Accessibility Strategist
IBM BT/CIO - Global Workforce and Web Process Enablement
Phone: (503) 578-2329, Tie line: 731-7398
mattking@us.ibm.com
From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
To: Matthew King/Fishkill/IBM@IBMUS,
Cc: "janina@rednote.net" <janina@rednote.net>, "W3C WAI Protocols &
Formats" <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Date: 12/04/2014 08:24 AM
Subject: Re: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC); Publish 1 ARIA FPWD
& 2 ARIA Heartbeats
Sent by: ahby@aptest.com
Matt,
Thanks for your comments on the respec output. Since I maintain that let
me address your comments specifically.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Matthew King <mattking@us.ibm.com> wrote:
There is a lot of discussion of the text role, with which I still have
significant concerns, and of text related to aria-hidden. But, is
consensus on major changes in the spec required before a heart beat
publication? If so, I think there should be further discussion of the text
role before publication.
I am also concerned with the accessibility of the spec itself. The respec
generated html needs quite a bit of work still. Perhaps it is fine to put
the heart beat out with such issues. I would rather we didn't. But, if it
is major work to correct them, it may be better to just get a draft out.
Issues:
1. Section heading levels are not correct. Every section, regardless of
its level, has h2. So for example, sections5, 5.1, and 5.1.1 are all H2
instead of H2, H3, and H4.
Actually, I disagree. Looking at the static version of the documents,
each sub-level of heading has a higher numbered section. Section 5, for
example, is an H2. Section 5.1 is an H3. This is not something we can
change.
We also have "H" elements on the role, state, and property definitions.
These are not section headings - they are just definitions. They are
currently H3, which is the same as the heading level of the section they
are in. I imagine they could be increased to H4. Would that help?
We can also have ReSpec add aria-level to each heading. It used to do
that, but people complained that the levels were wrong. I can put it back
easily enough. The problem is that in W3C specs the only "H1" is the
title. Which is asinine, but there you are. So all the real section
headers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) end up being aria-level 2. Which is silly from a
table of contents perspective. So when I implemented it I put aria-level
1 on the top level (e.g., section 2), 2 on the next level, etc. Steve
Faulkner and others objected to this, and the PF editors agreed that I
should just remove it. So I have. Assuming we were to re-implement the
use of aria-level on section headings, how would you like to see the
levels expressed?
2. the permalinks are included inside the heading tags. It would improve
readability if they were not a child of the heading.
For visual formatting purposes it would be challenging to pull them out of
that tag. I will look at it though.
3. Headings have aria-describedby pointing to the 1st paragraph after the
heading. I do not see the benefit. The downside is extra verbosity. I
don't think it models best practice to use aria-describedby in a document
in this way.
Actually, headings do not. Rather - some heading elements that are
"definitions", as in of roles, states, and properties, have describedby.
This is because they are "terms" and are being linked to their defining
text. This is similar to a definition list where the DL and DT elements
need to be connected in similar ways. If this is an incorrect usage,
please bring it up to the PF Editor's Group.
4. All the notes have heading tags. If the notes are going to have
headings, then I believe they should be a subheading under the heading of
the section in which they exist. For example, a note in a level 4 section
like 5.1.1 would have an H5.
Unfortunately, notes are a special class of animal and they don't get H*
elements. They don't have a heading "tag". They do have a role of
heading on the heading portion of the note. Sometimes the heading of a
note just says "Note" - so that's sort of silly. But a note may have a
more complex header (e.g., Note: some text about the note) in which case
the role='header' indication might be more meaningful.
Matt King
IBM Senior Technical Staff Member
I/T Chief Accessibility Strategist
IBM BT/CIO - Global Workforce and Web Process Enablement
Phone: (503) 578-2329, Tie line: 731-7398
mattking@us.ibm.com
From: "janina@rednote.net" <janina@rednote.net>
To: W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>,
Date: 12/03/2014 10:37 AM
Subject: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC); Publish 1 ARIA FPWD & 2
ARIA Heartbeats
Colleagues:
This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Protocols and Formats Working
Group to approve publication of the following three ARIA related
documents:
* A First Public Working Draft (FP:WD of the
Accessible Name and Description: Computation and API Mappings
https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/6cd22e8b0a834c4a54b7c6e4496a5887cc43f7ea/accname-aam/accname-aam.html
* Updated (heartbeat) drafts of the following 2 documents:
Core Accessibility API Mappings 1.1
https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/edfde333e76d19c4bf7a421978eaf89b7d9701e6/core-aam/core-aam.html
Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.1
https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/eaf032dc62e0dc3c25b76db0f2300f972eff6977/aria/aria.html
ACTION TO TAKE
According to our agreed Consensus Procedures, this CfC is now open for
objection, comment, as well as statements of support via email. Silence
will be interpreted as support, though messages of support are certainly
welcome.
If you object to this proposed action, or have comments concerning this
proposal, please respond by replying on list to this message no later
than 17:00 (5PM) Boston Time on Friday 5 December.
Janina
--
Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200
sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
Email: janina@rednote.net
Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair, Protocols & Formats
http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
Indie UI
http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
--
Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200
sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
Email: janina@rednote.net
Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair, Protocols & Formats
http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
Indie UI
http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2014 18:14:57 UTC