- From: Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 12:21:29 +0000
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Cc: Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org>, public-web-intents@w3.org
Hi Charles, Because we are looking to have the intent tag in the body, one of my thoughts early on would be for a AT to tell the user that the application they are using has the ability to support external actions - is this something that we need to specify further in the web intent spec? On the subject of "this is a share button, registered to 2 applications" - we never planned to divulge the number of items registered to AT or non-AT based apis, but the rest seems reasonable. Impicitly it seems that <input type=file> is analagous to "pick", and given that we can have an accepts attribute we can logically assume that the AT can understand this. On other types, such as a clickable div that looks like a button Aria roles seem like a nice solution. I do have one question how do we resolve the fact that the action can be a url, which in the case of all of the actions under the webintents.org namespace they are? An aria roles contain the following character classes [A-Za-z0-9_-%&:/\;,] - i.e can they be a url? P On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > On 1/31/12 11:45 PM, Dominic Cooney wrote: > > Hi Charles, > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: >> >> This issue just came up for me: how do we let an AT know ahead of time >> about an Intent which would be triggered by a button? This came up while >> talking to Benjamin about event forwarding from buttons to file input >> fields. > > > Could you elaborate on what the AT would use this for? > > > It's typical for most interactive fields that they carry some semantic > meaning. > > When you navigate through buttons, it says "Button", and then sounds off the > author supplied text. > Such that: <button>Example</button> will result in the AT saying: "button. > Example" or "Example. button type". > > It'd be nice, in cases where there is an intent, if we could make a mapping > ahead of time. > > I'm using <input type=file> as the archetype of all intents. > > It'd be nice to know that the following is going to spawn a file selection > dialog: > <img onclick="file.click()" alt="Add"> > > Now, that is of course, bad form. We should provide better alt text, and we > can certainly provide additional ARIA markup. But even saying "Add a file" > isn't the whole story. > It's really "Add a file from your browser's file picker". > > > >> Here's our modern day forwarding, with a non-standard role extension. >> >> <span role="file button" onclick=file.click() /> >> <input id=file id=file hidden /> >> >> >> That "file" role is not standard. Currently, an AT will just remark that >> it's a button (though it may read the role out). >> >> So, in the long term, everything is really an intent. > > > I don’t think everything is an intent; I think intents have a certain > granularity which makes some things too fine-grained to be intents (like > navigating a link, or selecting some text.) Intents also imply the > opportunity for parties being “late bound.” A given site might desire that > facility on a case-by-case basis, so similar action that is mediated using > intents on one site might be hard-coded and not use intents on another. > > > I'm not sure where I was going with that. I suppose I'd say that intents can > augment most elements. > > It's an opt-in system, much like the WAI-ARIA role. And there are some > existing semantics out there, items like <input type=file> being one where > the UA may mix registered intents with traditional file picker behavior. > > > >> How do we let ATs know that a button is going to trigger a file picker box >> when clicked on? Do we need an intent="mime/mask" attribute added to the top >> level of ARIA? > > > Would it make sense to use role extensions depending on the given intent? > For example <span role="share button" onclick=…>? Could you point to > examples of sites that have accessible roles for things that you’d probably > implement using intents? Or is there something special about the intent > itself? My gut feeling is that, from the user’s point of view, saying “this > button is connected to an intent” is like saying “this button does something > using AJAX.” It is kind of an implementation detail. > > > At it's most basic, that's what we have with button. "This is a button". > It's more than that, though, because the Intent information is registered > ahead of time, and may be used multiple times in the page. > > With Intent added on, we can say, "this is a share button, registered to 2 > applications", > or "this is a file picker button". "There are 4 additional items this intent > on the page". > > That's what I'd want to do for this page: > http://examples.webintents.org/intents/share/share.html > While it's easy enough to just cycle through buttons, if that page had more > buttons, it'd be nice to cycle through the "share" buttons. > > Yes, it does make sense to use role extensions. > The PFWG and/or other accessibility peoples may have some recommendations on > that. > > I would use role="share button" in my own apps, but for standards work, I'd > want to check with WAI-ARIA editors, and the broader community first. For my > own apps, I'm free to use standards as loosely as I like. > > -Charles -- Paul Kinlan Developer Advocate @ Google for Chrome and HTML5 G+: http://plus.ly/paul.kinlan t: +447730517944 tw: @Paul_Kinlan LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/paulkinlan Blog: http://paul.kinlan.me Skype: paul.kinlan
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2012 12:21:58 UTC