- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:38:27 +0100
- To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+VmuK6wk=4NNpLo57wCWKMYScH=aUD0DThUTk8COV0+VoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Domenic, -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> On 28 August 2014 15:57, Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > Hi Steve, thanks greatly for your help. It's clear now that I should have > reached out to you for your expertise directly before being very wrong on a > public mailing list :) > don't worry same thing happens to me all the time. > > From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> > > > It appears (please correct me) you have made the assumption that 'strong > native semantics' for roles is a UA requirement? This is not the case (in > the W3C HTML spec [1] at least, can't speak for where the WHATWG spec has > gone in defining ARIA in HTML), they are author conformance requirements. > > Yes, I was misled about that pretty badly. That changes things, as it > means there are no non-overridable roles or stoperties (as you show with > <hr role="menuitem">). For roles this is true, for states and properties native wins where specified (as Simon pointed out) > From my reading though, the default implicit ARIA semantics are still UA > requirements, right? > yes, these are what i pulled out of the spec and tested for HTML CR: http://stevefaulkner.github.io/html-mapping-tests/ This doc lists all the (ARIA section) UA requirements from the HTML5 CR spec, testing results for the 4 major browsers, and browser bugs filed where needed. > > To be clear, my concern is entirely about UA requirements, so anything > authoring-related is irrelevant to me. > > > The HTML spec (any brand) does not define how HTML features map to > platform accessibility APIs. This is being normatively defined in the HTML > Accessibility API Mappings specification [2]. > > > > Would it be worth considering exposing the platform accessibility APIs > used in the browser, to JS so that custom elements can be implemented to > fully reflect native element accessibility implementations? > > zcorpan pointed out this strategy in IRC as well. I think it is worth > exploring. Although, I was hoping to use ARIA as a platform-independent > interface into native platform accessibility APIs; that is, I was assuming > that everything a native or custom element would want to do could be > expressed with ARIA. But, you state earlier in your message that: > > > I don't think it is currently possible to define the browser > accessibility API mappings in terms of ARIA as it defines and incomplete > set of roles,states and properties used in acc APIs. > > This seems unfortunate. Why is that? Could you give an example? > I guess because ARIA is not trying to be provide a general abstraction of all roles,states and properties. The only cases (generally) where native features express role/state/property values in terms of ARIA in the acc APIs are where no platform acc API role/state/property exists. IA2 has a caption role that FF maps to the figcaption element, ARIA does not. > > Would it be more fruitful to augment ARIA in some way, instead of trying > to bypass it and go directly to platform accessibility APIs? The latter > seems like it would require a platform-agnostic intermediate layer to be > defined, which feels redundant with ARIA... > Possibly, I would suggest pinging the PF mailing list with some ideas would be a good place to start http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/ HTH
Received on Friday, 29 August 2014 14:39:34 UTC