W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > December 2009

Re: ARIA setsize attribute

From: Hans Hillen <hhillen@paciellogroup.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:47:33 +1300
Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org, David Bolter <dbolter@mozilla.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <3335BF75-92E6-4D5E-BFF4-CA19E1B223BC@paciellogroup.com>
To: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>
Hi Alex,

> I think it is intended to fix DOM structure if some amount of items
> are not yet loaded.
> In your tree example the author shouldn't be forced to use
> aria-setsize and aria-posinset because they can be calculated easy
> from aria-level attribute.
I see, I don't think this is this something Firefox does at the moment? I've just removed the aria-posinset and aria-setsize from my code in the Firebug UI (which is what that example was based on), and it stopped correctly exposing the tree structure.

> Any way aria-setsize could be defined on
> the treeitem parent in this case.

But in this example the treeitem's parent would be the table element itself, which represents the entire tree rather than a particular tree branch.


> Alex.
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Hans Hillen <hhillen@paciellogroup.com> wrote:
>> From what I understand, aria-setsize is intended to fix dom structures where
>> the set size can't be determined automatically from the DOM, e.g. a tree
>> widget that is marked up as a flat html table and every row has a role of
>> treeitem. In this case case the treeitems are not grouped by branch in the
>> DOM structure, so you would need to apply aria-setsize aria-posinset to and
>> aria-level  to every treeitem to fix this lack of structure.
>> Wouldn't setting aria-setsize on a container be a bit pointless, because:
>> If the container truly represents the set, then you wouldn't need the
>> aria-setsize attribute anymore because the setsize can be determined from
>> the DOM structure. If it can't be (for example because certain child roles
>> are not DOM children of the container) then aria-owns should be used and the
>> user agent should add it to the automatically calculated set size.
>> If the container does not reflect the actual set (as in my tree example
>> above), then aria-setsize wouldn't be applicable on this node.
>> Unless I'm missing something?
>> Regards,
>> Hans Hillen
>> TPG Europe
>> On Dec 12, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
>> Hi.
>> The ARIA specification says "This property is marked on the members of
>> a set, not the container element that collects the members of the set.
>> " (see http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/states_and_properties#aria-setsize).
>> However the same time it provides an example where the aria-setsize is
>> used on the container element:
>> <ul role="listbox" aria-setsize="16" aria-labelledby="label_fruit">
>>  <li role="option" aria-posinset="1"> apples </li>
>> I find the idea to define aria-setsize on the container element
>> reasonable and useful and I would happy if the user agents would take
>> into account the aria-setsize on the container only. But I'm fine with
>> either way because currently aria-setsize is supposed to be used on
>> the item.
>> Can the spec be fixed?
>> Thank you.
>> Alex.
Received on Saturday, 12 December 2009 02:48:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:25:28 UTC