- From: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:00:14 -0500
- To: David Bolter <david.bolter@utoronto.ca>
- CC: "wai-xtech@w3.org" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
David,
Some pros and cons.
Pro: if aria does become ubiquitous in the sense that it is used for
markup other than HTML, then it would be good to have a common way of
detecting changes to aria attributes. Thus, regardless of its use in
SVG, XUL, or whatever, there is a standard way to react to changes to
aria information.
Con: it has taken a long time for user agents to support DOM mutation
events. I despair of a new event coming along anytime soon. I guess it
depends on the will to do it -- get enough people behind it and it will
happen.
Con: and a very specific one. What about "native" widgets such as
<input type=checkbox>? They typically do not need aria information.
Specifically, aria-checked isn't needed for checkbox inputs.
Furthermore, there is a reason not to include aria attributes in these
cases because it leads to a synchronization issue. That is, given
<input type=checkbox checked="checked" aria-checked="true">, which of
@checked vs. @aria-checked do you trust if they are not in agreement?
But, if aria-checked is left out there won't be an AriaAttrModified
event when the checked state changes. So: how do you deal with native
widget state changes?
Miscellaneous: maybe it doesn't need to be a mutation event. There are
other "high level" events in the DOM3 event model, such as UIEvent.
Since a lot of aria deals with the user interface, perhaps that branch
of the event model should be extended. That is, perhaps aria events are
a fomr of UIEvents. (This obviously needs more thought).
--
;;;;joseph
'What did one snowman say to the other snowman?'
- "Adrift", D. Hume -
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 20:00:53 UTC