RE: Agenda: August 27, 2015 WAI-PF ARIA Caucus (Correction I am still chairing this week)

I disagree, this is specifically relevant when aria-owns is used to map the proper nesting structure of a Grid or Table, and is equivalent to the thead, tbody, and tfoot grouping structures within that arrangement. 

If aria-owns upon role=grid or role=table points to a role=rowgroup node, which in turn uses aria-owns to point to child role=row nodes, the accessibility tree structure is broken if rowgroup is nonexistent in the accessibility tree.

Also, role=rowgroup is used in role=treegrid structures for nesting levels is it not?


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Scheuhammer [mailto:clown@alum.mit.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:24 AM
To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>; Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: PF <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Agenda: August 27, 2015 WAI-PF ARIA Caucus (Correction I am still chairing this week)

There's another way to look at this that could get rid of the problem.

If there is no reason to ever expose an accessible for an element with role="rowgroup", then the semantics of rowgroup are non-existent, for all intents and purposes.

In that case, the rowgroup role can be deprecated and removed from the spec.  The advantages are:
- no author could ever make the error of adding @tabindex to a rowgroup element.
- no author could ever make the error of adding click, keypress or other events to the element.
- no webapp would be affected since there are no real world examples, or, if there are, then we would find out pretty quickly.
- user agent mappings would be interoperable since no user agent would expose the role.

Any objections to removing the rowgroup role?

--
;;;;joseph.

'Array(16).join("wat" - 1) + " Batman!"'
            - G. Bernhardt -

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 16:25:01 UTC