W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pfwg@w3.org > December 2014

Re: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC); Publish 1 ARIA FPWD & 2 ARIA Heartbeats

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:55:39 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOk_reG=07bZFA3sUdsLC8_ou790uH7wKUZ8gr8VjjRLPNJXHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew King <mattking@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "janina@rednote.net" <janina@rednote.net>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <public-pfwg@w3.org>
No - that's correct.  You are just looking at the source form instead of
the generated output.  Remember that ReSpec is a client side transformation
tool.  When we publish we will publish a static version (of course).  If
you like I can put a static version somewhere.  Let me know.

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Matthew King <mattking@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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*
> <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* <%28503%29%20578-2329>, Tie line: 731-7398
> *mattking@us.ibm.com* <mattking@us.ibm.com>
>
>
>
> From:        "*janina@rednote.net* <janina@rednote.net>" <
> *janina@rednote.net* <janina@rednote.net>>
> To:        W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <*public-pfwg@w3.org*
> <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*
> <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*
> <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*
> <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*
> <%2B1.443.300.2200>
>
> *sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net* <sip%3Ajanina@asterisk.rednote.net>
>                                  Email:
> *janina@rednote.net* <janina@rednote.net>
>
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:
> *http://a11y.org* <http://a11y.org/>
>
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair,                 Protocols & Formats
> *http://www.w3.org/wai/pf* <http://www.w3.org/wai/pf>
>                 Indie UI
> *http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/* <http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/>
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka,                 Phone:                 *+1.443.300.2200*
> <%2B1.443.300.2200>
>
> *sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net* <sip%3Ajanina@asterisk.rednote.net>
>                                  Email:
> *janina@rednote.net* <janina@rednote.net>
>
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:
> *http://a11y.org* <http://a11y.org/>
>
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair,                 Protocols & Formats
> *http://www.w3.org/wai/pf* <http://www.w3.org/wai/pf>
>                 Indie UI
> *http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/* <http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Shane McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>



-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2014 18:56:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:45:16 UTC