- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:48:35 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, chaals@opera.com, clc@clcworld.net
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org, Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org, mike@w3.org, Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com, steve@fullmeasure.co.uk
aloha, dan! thanks for the quick reply... i'm not sure the technology is extant for the type of test cases you're asking for, as they presupposes an HTML5-capable renderer (or simulator of such using a snapshot of the working draft) and a fully ARIA-aware assistive technology (or simulator of such a beast)... granted, some simple simulated proof-of-concept tests could (and should) be run, and several keyboard support features should be tested without assistive technology, for an important, and often over-looked constituency of users who benefit from "native accessibility features" in both markup languages and the user agents which render them, and a co-operative underlying operating system in order to have any meaningful interaction with a computer, but who do not require an "assistive technology" [reference 1] but, since ARIA 1.0, as currently deployed (and described in the ARIA Roadmap [reference 2], provides a means of enabling interaction with markup by conveying relationships, states, properties, roles, and events to accessibility APIs, the problem of simple manual testing of ARIA-enabled HTML5 pages is not quite such a simple task, although the concerns of this population is one of the focuses of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines, version 2.0 [reference 3] and a major motivator for the inclusion of as much native accessibility support in HTML5 as possible... as for interaction with on-screen keyboards, speech input, tactile displays, and speech output, for example, those who actually use the technologies and know how to evaluate their efficacy would need continually updated access to the very latest alpha builds of commercial assistive technologies, due to the predominance of third party assistive technologies developed by for-profit companies, despite such laudable initiatives as NVDA [reference 4] Orca [reference 5] and OATSoft [reference 6] charles, does this hold true for FireVox [reference 7], since FireVox runs in FF2 and not FF3? chaals, does this hold true for Opera with the XHTML+Voice plug-in? [reference 8] yes, there is something to be gleaned from theoretical and/or automated tests, but there is a limit as to their efficacy, for -- as we all too well know -- one can construct a valid page that is unusable by anyone... i think our (collaborative, cross-working group) efforts will bear more (and more immediate fruit) if (1) PF concentrates on getting ARIA 1.0 to recommendation status, (2) members of the HTML5 WG with the expertise and inclination (such as HenriS and SimonP, whose efforts and persistence i laud) assist the PF WG to gather as much hard data as to an integration strategy which will work in HTML5 without upsetting anyone else's apple carts, and (3) pertinent WAI working groups and HTML WG co-ordinate on conformance requirements and the engineering of superior solutions to those which were implemented in HTML 4x/XHTML 1.0, but which have been dropped, deprecated or materially altered in the HTML5 draft... gregory. reference 1: "assistive technology" * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistive_technology reference 2: WAI ARIA Roadmap * http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-roadmap/#abstract reference 3: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines, 2.0 * http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/ (first public working draft) * http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/ (UAAG, 1.0) reference 4: NVDA (NonVisual Desktop Access) * http://www.nvda-project.org/ * http://www.nvda-project.org/blog/ reference 4: Orca * http://www.gnome.org/projects/orca/index.html reference 5: OATSoft (Open Source Assistive Technology) * http://www.oatsoft.org/ * http://www.oatsoft.org/Info * http://www.oatsoft.org/Forge * http://www.oatsoft.org/Software reference 6: FireVox * http://firevox.clcworld.net/features.html reference 7: Opera Voice: * http://dev.opera.com/articles/voice/ ---------------------------------------------- Theory helps us to bear our ignorance of fact. -- George Santayana, "The Sense of Beauty" ---------------------------------------------- Gregory J. Rosmaita: oedipus@hicom.net Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/ ---------------------------------------------- ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net> Cc: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, HTML WG <public- html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org> Sent: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:09:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Discussing ARIA in HTML5 integration > On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 23:45 +0100, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote: > [...] > > and, what i said at last week's HTML WG telecon was that ARIA 1.0 is > > needed today and yesterday, and that embedding ARIA in HTML5 test > > cases is a non sequitur, because: > > Ah... that's what you were responding to. When I asked on the > phone, you said you weren't responding to anything I had said. > I was at a loss. > > We need test cases for every feature of HTML 5; > I prefer to use test cases whenever we make a > technical decision as a WG. So I'm confused when > you say that test cases for ARIA in HTML 5 > are a non sequitur. > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E ------- End of Original Message -------
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 00:50:17 UTC