Re: Is there an aria-level=0 ?

> Note that it's a "SHOULD" and not a "MUST", meaning user agents might have a
> valid reason to not set it to "1".  My guess is that FF is not bothering
> because it takes more cycles to perform the correction than it does to
> simply pass the value through to the AAPI.  But, that's just a guess.
> Anyone from FF know?

That's mostly right. FF doesn't make the correction of this sort.
Note, FF has a hook to filter things like <h1 aria-level="5">, i.e.
IAccessible2 groupPostion returns S_FALSE for this case.

Thanks.
Alex.


On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On 2013-03-12 8:04 PM, James Craig wrote:
>>
>> I don't have a strong preference one way or the other, but it seems like
>> this should be raised as an issue on the UAIG.
>
>
> The UAIG provides some guidance in the section on "Group Position" [1].
> Quoting the relevant text:
>
>> aria-level, aria-posinset, and aria-setsize are all 1-based. ... If any of
>> these properties are specified by the author as either "0" or a negative
>> number, user agents SHOULD use "1" instead.
>
>
> Note that it's a "SHOULD" and not a "MUST", meaning user agents might have a
> valid reason to not set it to "1".  My guess is that FF is not bothering
> because it takes more cycles to perform the correction than it does to
> simply pass the value through to the AAPI.  But, that's just a guess.
> Anyone from FF know?
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-implementation/#mapping_additional_position
>
> --
> ;;;;joseph.
>
>
> 'A: After all, it isn't rocket science.'
> 'K: Right. It's merely computer science.'
>              - J. D. Klaun -
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 15:11:28 UTC