- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 23:15:23 +0100
- To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
- Cc: Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, Bryan Garaventa <bryan.garaventa@whatsock.com>, "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>, "jongund@illinois.edu" <jongund@illinois.edu>, "jason@jasonjgw.net" <jason@jasonjgw.net>, "wai-xtech@w3.org" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "w3c-wai-pf@w3.org WAI-PFWG" <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
Regarding role="none" etc: Don’t know if Joanmarie meant same thing, but role="none" reminds of "no role". And "no role" is already a thing in HTML5. The link to its definition in fact ends with ”role-none”: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/CR/dom.html#concept-role-none And it is used there in tables of the aria mappings: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/CR/dom.html#sec-strong-native-semantics http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/CR/dom.html#sec-implicit-aria-semantics Role="presentation" is hard to mix with "no role". None/zero/empty are can more easily be associated with "no role". So at least, the issue should be given concideration. Leif Halvard Silli James Craig, Sat, 01 Feb 2014 10:11:10 -0800: >> I think we need a self-documenting role name which clearly communicates >> to web developers the fact that the use of this attribute will cause >> that element's contents to be exposed via the platform accessibility >> API(s) using some API-specific role and potentially presented to end >> users via their AT. A null/empty role fails to communicate that (IMHO). > > I’m not sure I understand the confusion around why role="none" or > role="null" would indicate that their is “no role” for the node. > Perhaps you can help me understand the confusion? That’s effectively > what role="presentation" means, but it’s just poorly named. > >> I think this self-documenting role name should also clearly communicate >> to user agent developers the fact that some valid, known role should be >> used when exposing that element via platform accessibility API(s). > > I may be misunderstanding some platform-specific API mapping for the > currently used role. On the AX API, role="presentation” means “ > there is no role for the current node, so don’t expose it to the > tree, but expose all of the descendant contents as normal.” > >> Here, too, the null/empty role falls short. Taking ATK as an example, your >> contenders seem like they should map to either ATK_ROLE_UNKNOWN or >> ATK_ROLE_INVALID -- and the contents would likely be ignored by ATs as a >> result. After all, if the implementor doesn't know what the heck it is, >> all bets (and AT heuristics) are off. > > I think the ATK mapping should just promote the child contents and > not expose the parent DOM node, because it has no role.
Received on Saturday, 1 February 2014 22:15:55 UTC