- From: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 10:10:29 -0500
- To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@ssbbartgroup.com>, "Gunderson, Jon R" <jongund@illinois.edu>, "LWatson@PacielloGroup.com" <LWatson@PacielloGroup.com>, "'Matthew King'" <mattking@us.ibm.com>, "'Joseph Scheuhammer'" <clown@alum.mit.edu>
- CC: "public-pfwg@w3.org" <public-pfwg@w3.org>
On 2014-11-20 9:35 AM, White, Jason J wrote:
> This discussion has been informative, but it motivates a call for clarification of the semantic differences between the proposed aria-current state, aria-selected and aria-activedescendant. As I understand the differences:
>
> aria-activedescendant implies that the element has the keyboard focus.
>
> aria-selected entails that the element will be acted upon by certain application commands, such as move, copy or delete operations, or that it is the chosen item in a list of options.
FWIW:
aria-activedescendant is a property of containers. Examples include
grid, radiogroup, and listbox roles. It is used as a way of designating
the item that has focus, and results in focus events in the
accessibility API.
aria-selected is a property of contained elements. Examples include
gridcell, radio button, and option roles. It is used to define a set of
selected items. If items are added or removed from the set, selection
events are emitted in the accessibility API.
While in certain cases focus-follows-selection, such as a single
selection listbox, there is no general requirement that selection and
focus coincide. It's possible that some item is both selected and
focused, but it is also possible that the selected item(s) and the
focused item are two different elements.
> aria-current (as proposed) appears to be a navigational concept: there are operations that will change what is "current", but this status entails nothing about any other application commands that operate upon the "current" item. As such, it's the weakest of the three concepts in the sense of having minimal implications regarding what will be affected by the user's subsequent actions. Both aria-selected and aria-activedescendant have fairly strong, though distinct, consequences in this regard.
According to the current proposed spec text, aria-current can be applied
to any element. It's not limited any specific type of container.
As a navigational concept, it has the semantic "you-are-here". The
aria-current item may or may not be focused, and it may or may not be
selected.
An example of its potential use is shown here:
http://idrc.ocad.ca/index.php/research-and-development/ongoing-projects.
On the left is a site index, which is a hierarchical list of links.
Visually, one of the links is styled as blue text and has a blue arrow
pointing at it; in this specific case "Ongoing Projects". As a sighted
user, at a glance, I can tell by those visual cues where I am on the
site. And if I navigate to another page on the site, the
blue-text-with-arrow moves appropriately. Unfortunately, this "current"
status is provided only through visual styles. The proposed
@aria-current is supposed to capture that navigational information.
Note that focus can be in numerous places on this page: on any one of
the table of contents links, including the current one, or any focusable
element elsewhere. Focus and aria-current are independent of one
another; in particular, aria-activedescendant may or may not coincide
with aria-current.
As far as selection is concerned, nothing on this page is selectable.
It seems to me that aria-current defines something separate from
aria-activedescendant and aria-selected. While it's possible that the
same element is simultaneously focused, selected, and current, there is
no requirement that all three coincide, and they don't in general.
--
;;;;joseph.
'Array(16).join("wat" - 1) + " Batman!"'
- G. Bernhardt -
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 15:10:58 UTC