W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-a11y@w3.org > June 2015

Re: ARIA roles for graphics

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:49:38 -0500
To: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
Cc: Fred Esch <fesch@us.ibm.com>, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>, "public-svg-a11y@w3.org" <public-svg-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF6B664EE4.80EB47FD-ON86257E6E.0071FD89-86257E6E.00726895@us.ibm.com>

Thanks for the great work.

Just a comment on the current draft. We wanted Figure to subclass region,
yet the example for figure places "figure" role elements inside the HTML5
<figure> element. These are really symbols inside a figure. If we want to
apply an SVG role of "figure" we should do it on the the SVG element here
and make it encompass symbols.

Also, we should not have an "img" role in our spec. as it is in the ARIA
1.1 spec. However, if we feel the the ARIA 1.1 spec. text for "img" is
inadequate then we should raise an issue on the ARIA 1.1 spec. An intent of
mine is to try and synch ARIA 1.1 with SVG2 as SVG2 references it.



Rich Schwerdtfeger

From:	Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
To:	"public-svg-a11y@w3.org" <public-svg-a11y@w3.org>
Cc:	Fred Esch/Arlington/IBM@IBMUS, "White, Jason J"
            <jjwhite@ets.org>, Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>
Date:	05/21/2015 12:21 PM
Subject:	Re: ARIA roles for graphics

Thanks all for feedback.

I am definitely open to alternate names. Really, we want something that
authors will know how to use without having to double-check the spec, so
"compleximg" or "structuredimg" make sense (even if they are somewhat
verbose).  I'd be cautious about using more specific words, like
"infographic", just yet.  As Fred said, we don't want to lock in anything
that might become redundant when we get into specifics for charts.  I also
don't want to restrict the semantic uses -- this could be used for fun
interactive graphics, not only informational ones!

If you don't think "figure" maps well to "complementary", then we could use
one of the other section types.  Maybe region?

I agree with your concern, but don't think it's necessary.  Even if we have
specific roles for charts and infographics, we still need basic terms for
other uses of SVG.

I agree that testing & implementation is important.  If that means that we
can't meet a timeline for ARIA 1.1, so be it.  Still better to get started
sooner rather than later!

If we have time for this on tomorrow's call, we can talk more.  Otherwise,
we can put it on the agenda for next week.


(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 20:50:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:28:16 UTC