Re: ISSUE: States should just be Properties with isDynamic=True

Wishy-washy == badness.

Maybe the goal to make ARIA simple enough should override the goal to 
provide this property vs state fidelity?

I tend to agree with James on folding properties and states together, 
and I with Aaron on not specifying static-ness... but I'm not deep into 
this topic.

cheers,
David
Aaron M Leventhal wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that helps. Al explained to me once that it's really just 
> to help give authors an idea of what the semantic is for.
>
> Not that I'm suggesting this, but Al's purpose for states vs. 
> properties would tend to lead to something like:
> usuallyStatic
>
> Unfortunately that kind of wishy-washy stuff leaves me feeling 
> unsettled. Likewise, I wouldn't want to actually limit whether 
> something is dynamic or not.
>
> For example, at first glance multiline would seem to never change. 
> However, I have seen many chat or IM apps where the text line can be 
> changed to a multiline text area.
>
> - Aaron
>
>
>
> From: 	James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
> To: 	W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
> Date: 	06/25/2008 12:25 AM
> Subject: 	Re: ISSUE: States should just be Properties with isDynamic=True
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> What if we specify the characteristic/value in a way that looks less  
> like a variable?
>
>                 "Property implied as State: Yes" instead of 
> "isDynamic: True"
>
>
> On Jun 24, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Aaron M Leventhal wrote:
>
> > I would have liked isDynamic better than state vs. property, but my  
> > concern is that this makes it seem like if isDynamic="false" then  
> > the state can't change dynamically.  Any ARIA property can change  
> > dynamically. Right now I believe the spec says somewhere that it's  
> > just a hint.
> >
> > It would be bad if we accidentally limited authors from dynamically  
> > changing semantics that are useful to change.
> >
> > - Aaron
> >
> >
> > From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
> > To: W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
> > Date: 06/24/2008 11:24 PM
> > Subject: ISSUE: States should just be Properties with isDynamic=True
> >
> >  ISSUE: States should just be Properties with isDynamic=True
> >
> > I'm concerned that the current ARIA distinction between States and
> > Properties is primarily due to an AT implementor perspective on
> > managed states. I understand the benefit to implementors, but I think
> > this "subtle  difference" is not well defined, and I think it will
> > lead to confusion among web application authors. Considering that
> > number of authors reading ARIA specs will likely be much higher the
> > number of AT implementors in existence, I'd lean towards skewing the
> > readability in favor of the authors' perspective.
> >
> > Current definitions of Properties versus States.
> >
> > > Property: Attributes that are essential to the nature of a given
> > > object. As such, they are less likely to change than states; a
> > > change of a property may significantly impact the meaning or
> > > presentation of an object. Properties mainly provide limitations on
> > > objects from the most general case implied by roles without
> > > properties applied.
> > >
> > > State: A state is a dynamic property expressing characteristics of
> > > an object that may change in response to user action or automated
> > > processes. States do not affect the essential nature of the object,
> > > but represent data associated with the object or user interaction
> > > possibilities.
> >
> > Current web authors are very familiar with "properties as attributes"
> > in HTML. I believe it hurts the readability of the document to
> > separate dynamic properties (states) from standard properties.
> > Likewise, splitting them into separate lists decreases the  
> > readability/
> > understandability of the document.
> >
> > I propose we reconcile the list of states and properties into one
> > master properties list. In the "Definitions for Properties" section,
> > the properties-previously-known-as-states could be marked as
> > isDynamic=True. isDynamic would then be defined as:
> >
> > isDynamic: Dynamic properties are not essential to the nature of a
> > given object. As such, they are more likely to change than non-dynamic
> > properties; a change of a non-dynamic property may significantly
> > impact the meaning or presentation of an object.
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 14:18:35 UTC