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

Re: ARIA setsize attribute

From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:55:26 -0800
Cc: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>, wai-xtech@w3.org, David Bolter <dbolter@mozilla.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <FAB29FC2-4CE3-4D19-A2AF-3BA7D4F14782@apple.com>
To: Hans Hillen <hhillen@paciellogroup.com>
In light of Hans' reminder, I now recall the original reason for this requirement was for the nested groups in trees and treegrids. Although the setsize could logically be set at a tree or group node, it's possible the visible container may only be displaying a subset items within one nested set, so it's not necessary or appropriate to require the author to render the group/set node in the DOM.  We could get away with using setsize on the node in single-level widgets (lists, grids, etc) but would then be defining it differently than is required for nested widgets (trees, treegrids).

I'm going to correct the new example rather than propose changing the group-approved text. I'm also dropping the newly raised issue. 

There's been a deluge of spec edits over the past few months, so there are bound to be some mistakes. Thanks again for the quick catch. 


On Dec 11, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Hans Hillen 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 02:56:02 UTC

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