Re: ACTION-1442: Draft spec text for aria-current and aria-currentfor

As long as there's the use case for aria-activedescendant and aria-current
within same container then it's good reason to keep aria-current and do not
name it as aria-active. Having said that I think ATK_STATE_ACTIVE is rather
confusing because:
* name conflicts with aria-activedescendant (same issue as aria-active)
* shares the name with IA2_STATE_ACTIVE but has different meaning
* following previous ATK active state definition the active state should be
rather applied to a linked panel than to a link itself.

Anyway ATK mapping must be a separate issue.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> On 2014-11-26 10:28 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
>
>> Can you think of use case where aria-activedescendant and aria-current
>> can be used for different elements of the same container?
>>
>
> The example I gave using site navigation applies:
> http://idrc.ocad.ca/index.php/research-and-development/ongoing-projects.
> The site index can be navigated using up/down arrow keys, moving focus from
> link to link, but the "you-are-here" link doesn't change.  Thus, "focus" is
> independent of "current" in the same container.
>
> Now, while the site doesn't use actually aria-activedescendant for focus
> traversal, it could.  Which means aria-activedescendant and aria-current
> will be used for different elements in the same container.  Furthermore, in
> this example, aria-activedescendant would be a property of the container
> element that holds all of the links, and it would point to the link with
> focus.  In contrast, aria-current is property of one of the links, and not
> a property of the container:
>
> <div id="left-col" aria-activedescendant="item-2">
> ...
>   <ul>
>     <li id="item-1">...</li>
>     <li id="item-2"> ...</li>  <!-- This is the active descendant -->
>    ...
>     <li id="item-42" aria-current="true"> ... </li> <!-- You are here -->
> ...
> </div>
>
>  Otherwise why would not extend meaning of aria-activedescendant to fit
>> aria-current needs like the attribute pointing to currently active element?
>>
>
> Because aria-activedescendant is about focus, whereas aria-current is
> about orientation.  I don't think aria-current "points" to anything since
> it's just a boolean value.  Léonie, Matt, does it?
>
>
>> There's some confusion with naming. Dominic suggest to rename it to
>> aria-active what makes it sound close to aria-activedescendant.
>>
>
> That's an argument against naming it aria-active, since it could lead to
> author confusion as to which attribute to use where.
>
>  Joanie suggests to map it to ATK active state which is currently used for
>> active windows only.
>>
>
> The ATK documents have been updated [1].  ATK_STATE_ACTIVE applies to more
> than windows.  Furthermore, ATK_STATE_ACTIVE is distinct from
> ATK_STATE_FOCUSED and ATK_STATE_SELECTED.
>
> However, I see a problem.  The latest documentation also says
> "ATK_STATE_ACTIVE should not be used for objects which have
> ATK_STATE_FOCUSABLE or ATK_STATE_SELECTABLE".  But, that's ambiguous.  It
> might be saying, "do not use ATK_STATE_ACTIVE for focus or selection
> states".  Or, it might mean "something that is focusable or selectable can
> never have ATK_STATE_ACTIVE", which is counter to the site index example
> above.  Joanie, can you clarify?
>
>  IA2 has active state that can be used both for windows or current element
>> within controls (i.e used for aria-activedescendant case). Obviously
>> current and active in a container concepts are close and have a subtle
>> difference (if they have).
>>
>>
> [1] https://developer.gnome.org/atk/unstable/atk-AtkState.html
>
>
> --
> ;;;;joseph.
>
> 'Array(16).join("wat" - 1) + " Batman!"'
>            - G. Bernhardt -
>
>