- 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