- From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:28:27 -0600
- To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <public-pfwg@w3.org>
- Cc: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>, "Ted O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, WAI XTech <wai-xtech@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFA6B4C18D.216E36E5-ON86257DAA.0073F21B-86257DAA.0075F636@us.ibm.com>
We are not in candidate recommendation stage. It is too early to state it is at risk. You have also raised technical issues with longdesc but as far as I can tell it seems to have gone forward. To be honest I have avoided that whole quagmire. You are completely wrong that aria-describedat cannot be implemented in a device independent way. Both ATK/ATSPI and IA2 have the ability to expose activation of aria-described at as one or more of a collection of action. I don't know how Microsoft has implemented longdesc in UIA but I believe there is a programmatic way to activate it. UIA also supports design patterns. If one were not provided one could easily create a new control pattern that would allow for device independent activation of the aria-describedat URL. I believe that Firefox did support that functionality when it supported longdesc. An AT could bring up a menu of options should other actions be applicable to the object. It is not your decision to put something at risk. It is the working groups decision. Period. It is inappropriate that you made a decision on behalf of the working group. We are not even remotely close to CR. Furthermore, the stake holder that requested this feature is part of PF and you initiated this discussion on a list not used for the ARIA specification and they don't even have a seat at the table. I think everyone knows that you have raised concerns about longdesc. This is not news to anyone. Rich Rich Schwerdtfeger From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS Cc: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazzoni@google.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, WAI XTech <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "Ted O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com> Date: 12/09/2014 09:39 PM Subject: Re: Is ARIA A11y only? [Was: @aria-describedat at-risk ...] On Dec 9, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com > wrote: The ARIA task force did not reach consensus on this and you should not be posting what is at risk. The requirement in question (not the entire property) is not implemented and several implementors have indicated an unwillingness and/or concern regarding implementation, which means it's at risk whether the working group has consensus or not. The only edit I made this week was requested by Janina and Michael, which was to remove the noted comments from the specification and instead point to the list archive where the discussion could continue… as it is continuing. They specifically requested a publicly postable archive, so XTech was the logical place. I understand you have a personal issue on this but that should not pass to group consensus. Rich I have no personal issue against this and reject the implication that my edits were somehow personally motivated. If I let personal motivations drive my edits, I would never have added the property in the first place. I do, however, have *technical* issues with these requirements, as I expressed to the group on numerous occasions: User agents should provide a device-independent mechanism to allow a user to navigate the user agent to content referenced by the aria-describedat attribute. User agents should also provide a device-independent mechanism to return the user's focus from the descriptive content view to the original content view. For example, a user agent may provide access to the document or document fragment referenced by the aria-describedat attribute in a contextual menu associated with the object. These requirements are specifically *NOT IMPLEMENTABLE* in any reasonable way because they do not follow any established ARIA pattern, and conflict with the defined behavior of every native host language. The requirements are at-risk, so they are marked as at-risk. It would be inappropriate if I did *not* note the at-risk status. James
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2014 21:29:02 UTC