- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:55:39 -0600
- To: Matthew King <mattking@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "janina@rednote.net" <janina@rednote.net>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <public-pfwg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOk_reG=07bZFA3sUdsLC8_ou790uH7wKUZ8gr8VjjRLPNJXHQ@mail.gmail.com>
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