Re: ARIA roles for graphics

Regarding the figure example, I agree that this might not be the best
example.  I really wanted to emphasize the idea that part of an <svg> could
be it's own labelled figure, and that figures could be nested.  However, I
was also trying to keep it simple.  The result was maybe too simple, since
as you say each "sub-figure" is just a single element and should have
role=img.  I'll try to think up something better.

I recognize the problem with having two specs being developed in parallel
with different definitions for the same role.

I'm starting to think that it would be easiest if we can convince the main
ARIA team to pull the general purpose roles into the main spec: figure,
iconbutton, symbol, and the revised img definition.

We could keep graph-document and graph-object as the base elements in our
new graphical role taxonomy, which would also include more specific roles
such as graph-map, graph-chart, graph-axis, graph-legend, etc.

ABR

On 24 June 2015 at 14:49, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rich
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Amelia Bellamy-Royds ---05/21/2015
> 12:21:44 PM---Thanks all for feedback. Léonie:]Amelia Bellamy-Royds
> ---05/21/2015 12:21:44 PM---Thanks all for feedback. Léonie:
>
> 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.
>
> Léonie:
> 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?
>
> Fred:
> 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.
>
> Jason:
> 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.
>
> Best,
> Amelia
>
>
>
>