- 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>
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 spec. For mainstream, browser-type user agents, it's always an R FC "May." Janina > > James > > -- 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/
Received on Friday, 12 December 2014 00:10:02 UTC