Re: Handling of landmark roles on native markup

Hi, Steve. I realize how much the cross browser consistence means for
the web author. But replacing the implementation existed for years on
the web to a new one without clear understanding of new approach
benefits is not easy decision. Taking into account this is not single
case when Firefox implementation was made incorrect by spec changes
it's rather wider issue than "fix this item" problem.

Alex.


On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Steve Faulkner
<faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> While I do see the utility in such an approach, I have had experience of a
> client using this approach and due to it not working across browsers it has
> the potential to have a detrimental effect upon users of browsers other than
> Firefox.
>
> For that reason I would like to see firefox roll back its implementation and
> the behaviour get standradized and agreed upon.
>
> regards
> Steve
>
>
> On 20 March 2012 11:27, Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Old wording makes more sense for me.
>> >
>> > Are you talking about a "wording" (how something is phrased) or about
>> > a different behavior (what the wording actually means)? If the later,
>> > would you be able to tease out why it makes more sense?
>>
>> I meant behavior, sorry for being unclear.
>>
>> Aaron and Victor provided good examples for ARIA landmarks. Landmarks
>> were special kinds of roles, they didn't override native markup
>> semantic but rather were used to add a new semantic. This behavior was
>> used on the web and in Gecko. For example HTML table@role="main" was
>> exposed to AT as a landmark table. Now new behavior requires us to
>> expose it as a landmark accessible with no role. I don't see a good
>> reason of this.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Alex.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
>> <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Alexander Surkov
>> > <surkov.alexander@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Old wording makes more sense for me.
>> >
>> > Are you talking about a "wording" (how something is phrased) or about
>> > a different behavior (what the wording actually means)? If the later,
>> > would you be able to tease out why it makes more sense?
>> >
>> >> ARIA is restricted to external input, many discussions happens on
>> >> phone calls which is not friendly to time zones. As Firefox a11y
>> >> developer I was never asked or even told about changes. Thus often I
>> >> don't have a chance to provide feedback. Sometimes I have a feeling
>> >> that Firefox is no longer part of ARIA progress.
>> >
>> > I can appreciate that interfacing with PFWG must be fairly frustrating
>> > for implementors; it's fairly frustrating for some of us in other WGs
>> > too.
>> >
>> > Note you can always provide formal feedback on a Public Working Draft
>> > via:
>> >
>> >    public-pfwg-comments@w3.org
>> >
>> > Sadly there doesn't seem to be any commitment to process such comments
>> > outside of allocated comment periods, and there doesn't seem to be any
>> > official channel for commenting on Editorial Drafts. The comment
>> > period for ARIA 1.0 Candidate Recommendation ended more than a year
>> > ago (February 2011).
>> >
>> > See also: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/comments/instructions
>> >
>> > --
>> > Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
>>
>
>
>
> --
> with regards
>
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
>
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
> Web Accessibility Toolbar -
> www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>

Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 12:58:47 UTC