- From: Hans Hillen <hhillen@paciellogroup.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:47:33 +1300
- To: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>
- Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org, David Bolter <dbolter@mozilla.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Hi Alex, > > I think it is intended to fix DOM structure if some amount of items > are not yet loaded. OK > > 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. Regards, Hans > 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