- From: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:52:07 -0500
- To: David Bolter <david.bolter@gmail.com>
- CC: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, wai-xtech@w3.org
Sorry for the multiple copies. Wai-xtech rejected the first send.
Trying again...
David Bolter wrote:
> So I think one thing (call it "A") you are proposing is that the a web
> developer can do this:
>
> 1. <input type="checkbox" aria-posinset="5">
>
> aria-posinset is not listed in the "Global States and Properties", but
> the fact that this HTML element is in all other respects semantically
> equivalent to:
>
> 2. <div role="checkbox" aria-posinset="5">
>
> means we should allow the aria-posinset to work.
Indeed, aria-posinset is not a global property. However, it is also not
a property of checkbox. The spec says that it is "Used in Roles:
listitem and option". [1] The taxonomy diagram shows this more clearly
in terms of the relationship between checkbox, option, and where
aria-posinset fits in. [2] The "option" and "checkbox" roles are
towards the left in the diagram, they are siblings, and both inherit
from "input". The aria-posinset is located in the "option" role only.
I'm not sure what to conclude. Possibilities are that aria-posinset
should be global, or there is a bug in the spec for
checkboxes/aria-posinset, or there is a bug in gecko, or you meant a
different property, or tying specific states and properties to specific
roles is, well, a bit of a mug's game.
> One advantage might be that if AT end up looking to the role object
> attribute first (before the enumerated desktop role), then we can have
> a greater path to extensibility*.
Yes.
[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/states_and_properties#aria-posinset
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/rdf_model.png
--
;;;;joseph
'I had some dreams, they were clowns in my coffee. Clowns in my coffee.'
- C. Simon (misheard lyric) -
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2011 20:52:52 UTC