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

Re: Is ARIA A11y only? [Was: @aria-describedat at-risk ...]

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 19:09:32 -0500
To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>, Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>, "Ted O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "David (Standards) Singer" <singer@apple.com>, WAI XTech <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>, David Bolter <dbolter@mozilla.com>
Message-ID: <20141212000932.GW23008@opera.rednote.net>
James Craig writes:
> > On Dec 11, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> > 
> >>> Beyond that I'm at a loss to understand how this is
> >>> insufficiently clear, including for DescribedAt.
> >> 
> >> It is clear, but it is clearly in direct conflict with the new UA reqs in
> >> #aria-describedat.
> >> 
> >>>> The WAI-ARIA specification neither requires or forbids user agents from
> >>>> enhancing native presentation and interaction behaviors on the basis of
> >>>> WAI-ARIA markup. [1]
> >> 
> >> And then later, a direct contradiction in #aria-describedat:
> >> 
> >>>> User agents SHOULD provide a device-independent mechanism to allow a
> >>>> user to navigate the user agent to content referenced by the aria-
> >>>> describedat attribute. User agents SHOULD also provide a device-
> >>>> independent mechanism to return the user's focus from the descriptive
> >>>> content view to the original content view. [2]
> > 
> > Where you see two statements in conflict, I see the first statement
> > defining the bounds of the second.
> > 
> > If we haven't made that sufficiently clear, then we need to clarify that
> > somehow, and we should do so globally, to avoid exactly this kind of
> > confusion.
> > 
> > I'm open to proposals as to how best to do this, and I will take some
> > time to see if I have notions on how to do it.
> > 
> > Perhaps some additional language were we discuss our reliance on RFC2119
> > would help. But, let's do what we must to make it very clear.
> > 
> > James, would this kind of clarification work for you?
> I see no ambiguity in the statement above, and cannot think of any acceptable re-wording that would allow for an RFC-2119 SHOULD.
> If you want to change these statements from SHOULD to MAY, that would suffice, as it would effectively make them no longer requirements. MAY/OPTIONAL recommendations are in line in the prose above. UI requirements including "UAs SHOULD" are not.

No, I want to define "user agent" in a way that excludes mainstream
browsers, but includes AT type user agents.

For the AT type user agents, it's still shoulds and musts throughout the

For mainstream, browser-type user agents, it's always an R
FC "May."


> James


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		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/
Received on Friday, 12 December 2014 00:10:02 UTC

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