- From: James Nurthen <james@nurthen.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 12:19:08 -0700
- To: free-aria@googlegroups.com
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, WebAIM Discussion List <webaim-forum@list.webaim.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOEMLYytCWjKj3=6s+xhPRYBWD3EE7XEWsYTv8sK5iDq9zOOhg@mail.gmail.com>
Bryan, I have raised ISSUE-522 against the spec to clarify that role=presentation does not act to rope of content from the accessibility APIs. Regards, James On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Bryan Garaventa < bryan.garaventa@whatsock.com> wrote: > That sounds good to me as well. If we can reach a consensus about how to > implement descriptive overrides for occasions that need it, this will help > everyone. > > This is why I suggested the use of role=presentation as a way of roping > off content that is unsuitable to be included in such an automated > description. I know the arguments about the purpose of role=presentation, > but they too aren't clearly defined. > > One problem I see with trying to automatically compensate for what > developers fail to do properly, is that it will encourage lazy coding in > the future. > > So if others have suggestions for a solution to this, please speak up. > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Teh" <jamie@nvaccess.org> > To: <free-aria@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 12:27 AM > > Subject: Re: [free-aria] Important differences between ARIA dialog, > alertdialog, and role=presentation support > > > On 31/05/2012 3:21 PM, Bryan Garaventa wrote: >> >>> What concerns me, is that NVDA has implemented an HTML markup >>> requirement for ARIA support that is not documented in the spec for user >>> agents. >>> >> Sure. I do recognise and understand your concern. The work around I >> suggested is clearly very ugly. However: >> >> By trying to automatically correct the mistakes of developers who should >>> know better, we are inadvertently deviating from the spec itself, and >>> breaking the functionality of ARIA standard compliant widgets. >>> >> The fundamental problem for us is that an ARIA dialog is no different to >> any other dialog, and for all dialogs, we derive text if it is not >> explicitly supplied. As I said, if consensus is that this behaviour is >> incorrect, we can try to implement an exception specifically for ARIA, but >> this starts to suggest that ARIA widgets should be treated differently from >> native widgets, which smells ugly to me. We'll have to implement this >> exception separately for each browser as well. >> >> All of this said, the cards are all on the table now. I am keen to hear >> others' opinions so we can work towards an acceptable solution. >> >> Jamie >> >> -- >> James Teh >> Director, NV Access Limited >> Email: jamie@nvaccess.org >> Web site: http://www.nvaccess.org/ >> Phone: +61 7 5667 8372 >> >> >> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryan Garaventa" > To: <free-aria@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:21 PM > > Subject: Re: [free-aria] Important differences between ARIA dialog, > alertdialog, and role=presentation support > > > I'm not questioning the complexity or your workmanship. I think you guys >> are awesome. >> >> What concerns me, is that NVDA has implemented an HTML markup requirement >> for ARIA support that is not documented in the spec for user agents. >> >> I understand that the name (label) is announced before the description. >> The point is, that without resorting to an HTML hack that only works in >> NVDA, developers cannot stop NVDA from automatically announcing a >> description. >> >> You are correct that many dialogs have text. However this is easily dealt >> with using ARIA by voluntarily adding the aria-describedby attribute to the >> dialog like so. >> >> <div role="dialog" aria-describedby="myDesc" > >> <div id="myDesc"> >> Dialog description... >> </div> >> ... Form ... >> </div> >> >> The ARIA standards exist for this reason, to advise developers how to >> properly implement these controls. If a developer is ARIA savvy enough to >> add role=dialog to their control, we have to assume they are smart enough >> to know and read from the spec that supporting text should also be >> referenced in this manner. >> >> By trying to automatically correct the mistakes of developers who should >> know better, we are inadvertently deviating from the spec itself, and >> breaking the functionality of ARIA standard compliant widgets. >> >> For example, both of the samples I attached to the bug are perfectly HTML >> and ARIA standard compliant, but they don't work properly. They work fine >> for keyboard only users, just not for screen reader users, because of this >> issue. >> >> I guess the best way to explain this is to recall the browser wars of >> yore, where we had one hack for IE, one hack for Opera, one hack for >> Safari, one hack for Firefox, and in the darkness bound them, in the land >> of Mordor where the shadows lie... >> >> You see what I mean? If NVDA requires an HTML hack that is not supported >> anywhere else because it's not documented in the user agent specification, >> we're perpetuating the same problem for screen reader support in the future >> by introducing inconsistent accessibility. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Teh" <jamie@nvaccess.org> >> To: <free-aria@googlegroups.com> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:38 PM >> Subject: Re: [free-aria] Important differences between ARIA dialog, >> alertdialog, and role=presentation support >> >> >> Hi. >>> >>> Just a few clarifications: >>> >>> On 31/05/2012 9:13 AM, Bryan Garaventa wrote: >>> >>>> If neither of the explicit label attributes are included, then the >>>> label is derived from the text of the dialog itself. >>>> >>> NVDA itself only ever uses the label as provided by the browser. >>> >>> From what I understand, the role of alertdialog is similar to dialog, >>>> except that the content of an alertdialog is parsed and announced >>>> automatically. >>>> >>> It's announced automatically as the description, not the label. This is >>> an important distinction. The description does not override the label. The >>> label is announced before the role. The description is announced afterwards. >>> >>> So the current stance from NVDA, is that dialog and alertdialog are >>>> handled as the same widget type, and that all content within a widget of >>>> role=dialog is announced >>>> >>> All content isn't announced. However, if aria-describedby isn't present, >>> we do use an algorithm which attempts to determine the "text" of the >>> dialog. This algorithm isn't perfect (and never will be), but we aim to >>> filter out content which wouldn't normally be considered part of the dialog >>> text/message. This is exactly what we do for native dialogs. >>> >>> My argument here is that everywhere else, dialogs are considered to >>> potentially have text. The alertdialog case is obvious, but there are >>> dialogs that ARIA wouldn't call alertdialogs that also have text. For >>> example, consider a properties dialog which shows information that is not >>> interactive. This information should be part of the dialog text (which >>> means it will be announced to screen reader users automatically when the >>> dialog opens). Thus, we treat an ARIA dialog the same as any native dialog >>> and try to determine text if there is no explicit description. To NVDA, an >>> ARIA dialog is no different to any other dialog (nor should it be). We can >>> implement an ARIA specific hack to differentiate, but this seems contrary >>> to the goal of ARIA widgets behaving the same as any native widget. >>> >>> Jamie >>> >>> -- >>> James Teh >>> Director, NV Access Limited >>> Email: jamie@nvaccess.org >>> Web site: http://www.nvaccess.org/ >>> Phone: +61 7 5667 8372 >>> >>> >>> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Free ARIA Community" group. > To post to this group, send email to free-aria@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to free-aria+unsubscribe@** > googlegroups.com <free-aria%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** > group/free-aria?hl=en <http://groups.google.com/group/free-aria?hl=en>. > >
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 19:19:59 UTC