Re: ARIA mapping of intent

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