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

RE: @inert and @aria-inert for disambiguating modal states

From: Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 08:15:49 +0000
To: Matthew King <mattking@us.ibm.com>
CC: W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2e9df84ddd714210bdf13ad1ba8e7159@BL2PR03MB338.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In general I agree, however what is unclear to me, as well as to many developers, is what constitutes and defines a non-modal dialog exactly?

For example, the following demo is a simple popup
http://whatsock.com/tsg/Coding%20Arena/Popups/Popup%20(Internal%20Content)/demo.htm

There is no ARIA concept or widget type for a so called ‘popup’ however, which is simply a panel of content that pops open and is overlayed over body content when it appears after it is triggered.

This doesn’t qualify as a tooltip, because it is too complicated and includes embedded active elements, and it doesn’t qualify as a modal, because it’s not supposed to be modal.

So, the nearest equivalent, is that of a non-modal dialog, even though it is not styled to look like a dialog nor is it intended to act like one.

Also, it’s overkill to add all of the requisite keystrokes like F6 and keyboard trapping, because the content is already fully accessible as is, and it doesn’t need to be that complicated to be accessible.




From: Matthew King [mailto:mattking@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 6:12 PM
To: Bryan Garaventa
Cc: W3C WAI Protocols & Formats
Subject: RE: @inert and @aria-inert for disambiguating modal states

Bryan,

The guidance says the application needs to provide a keyboard function for moving focus between the non-modal dialog and the main application window. It suggest F6 as a possibility. This can also be done with buttons in each window. F6 may be a shortcut for operating those buttons that is revealed when the button has focus or on hover.

We definitely want the tab ring for the non-modal dialog to be separate from the tab ring for the main application. That is 99% of the UX benefit of having the a-modal dialog instead of just another region on the page.

For example, picture a sidebar window in a rich text editor for listing comments and revisions. It may have a list of comments and revisions that can be ordered in different ways with a sorting menu. It may have buttons for adding and deleting comments. The tab ring (and screen reader browsing function) should be isolated to the comment and revisions experience so the user can discover and use comment and revision related tasks more efficiently.

The application could provide the user with several ways of moving focus to the main editor window from the comment and revisions dialog. It could allow the user to select a comment in the comment list and press enter to move the editing cursor to the point in the text where the comment appears and place the focus there. It could also let the user press F6 or a "return to editor" button to move back to the main application window without changing the location of the editing cursor. It might also allow the user to press escape or a close button to close the comment and revisions dialog and return focus to the current location of the editing cursor. This type of experience would be similar to the MMS Word styles pane).

The point is that tab and shift tab would not return focus to the main window. The application would provide other ways of moving focus back and forth between the two windows precisely so that the non-modal dialog can have its own tab ring.

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<mailto:mattking@us.ibm.com>



From:        Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>>
To:        Matthew King/Fishkill/IBM@IBMUS,
Cc:        W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org<mailto:public-pfwg@w3.org>>
Date:        11/07/2014 04:24 PM
Subject:        RE: @inert and @aria-inert for disambiguating modal states
________________________________



I just ran some tests, and it actually does work well in FF if you don’t follow the APG. Specifically where it states:

“A non-modal dialog is one which is displayed and focusable at the same time   as the application which invoked it. Also like the modal dialog, focus via the   tab and shift-tab key must be maintained within the dialog. However, a non-modal   dialog should have a keyboard mechanism to return focus to the application while   leaving the dialog open.”

If you ignore the part about the tab and shift+tab keys, you can navigate out of a non-modal dialog, but if you do follow the guide, then you cannot; being trapped within the container using JAWS.

Granted Escape can close a dialog and return focus, but if this is the only mechanism for achieving this, then it negates the guidance
“a non-modal   dialog should have a keyboard mechanism to return focus to the application while   leaving the dialog open”

I guess this should probably be clarified further while we work on the guide.

From: Matthew King [mailto:mattking@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 3:53 PM
To: Bryan Garaventa
Cc: W3C WAI Protocols & Formats
Subject: RE: @inert and @aria-inert for disambiguating modal states

Which JAWS behavior is inconsistent with the APG guidance on non-modal dialogs?

The guidance does not say what AT should do. But, it does say:
"Also like the modal dialog, focus via the tab and shift-tab key must be maintained within the dialog. However, a non-modal dialog should have a keyboard mechanism to return focus to the application while leaving the dialog open.  "

Assuming such keyboard function is provided by the application, when it is invoked, I assume JAWS would switch between 2 different virtual buffers: one containing the dialog content and one containing other application content. Of course, whether or not the screen reader operates in this manner or some other is the prerogative of the screen reader vendor. I would personally find such behavior very beneficial and analogous to comparable desktop experiences.

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<mailto:mattking@us.ibm.com>



From:        Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>>
To:        Matthew King/Fishkill/IBM@IBMUS,
Cc:        W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org<mailto:public-pfwg@w3.org>>
Date:        11/07/2014 03:18 PM
Subject:        RE: @inert and @aria-inert for disambiguating modal states
________________________________




Matt, would it be worth filing a bug with FS regarding the handling of role=dialog in FF? This functionality goes against the guidance at
http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices/#dialog_nonmodal


From: James Nurthen [mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 12:40 PM
To: public-pfwg@w3.org<mailto:public-pfwg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: @inert and @aria-inert for disambiguating modal states

I see the need for a developer to state whether their dialogs are modal or not.

In the Modal case, for AT which uses a virtual buffer model, it would allow the AT to prevent the user from interacting with the base page using the virtual buffer when a modal dialog is open. If the dialog is not modal then AT should allow interaction with the base page.

JAWS does this today for the dialog role but IMO this is not correct because dialogs do not have to be modal.

I don't care how this problem is solved. aria-inert seems like one possible solution, but alternatively there could be an aria-modal property on the dialog role - or even a new role entirely for modal dialogs.

Regards,
James
On 11/6/2014 10:08 AM, Dominic Mazzoni wrote:
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:01 AM, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com<mailto:jcraig@apple.com>> wrote:
On Nov 5, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com<mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com>> wrote:

> Dominic, @inert is an indicator of state - like aria states and properties. It does not have to do the actual function.

This is a false statement. @inert is useless if it does not provide the function. By the same logic, I can see no possible way that @aria-inert would be useful or even possible to implement.

Exactly, I don't see any purpose in @aria-inert that reports to AT and doesn't actually do anything. What is the AT supposed to do if events fire on nodes that have aria-inert=true?


--
Regards, James

[Oracle]<http://www.oracle.com/>
James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
Phone: +1 650 506 6781<tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 987 1918<tel:+1%20415%20987%201918>
Oracle Corporate Architecture
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
[Green             Oracle]<http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

image001.gif
(image/gif attachment: image001.gif)

image002.gif
(image/gif attachment: image002.gif)

Received on Monday, 10 November 2014 08:16:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:45:13 UTC