RE: Summarizing the contentious history of re-opened PFWG-ISSUE-348: Consider renaming (now actually 'deprecating' in ARIA 1.1) role="presentation" to avoid avoid author confusion

Hi Cynthia,

I disliked *alt=""* from the beginning since it mimics being explicit by misusing an attribute not designed for this purpose. 
*aria-hidden* or *role ="presentation"* is much more explicit to be used with decorative images. 

I know *alt=""* was and is a "recommended and AT-supported technique" but it is 2014 now and the world has turned.

Regards
Stefan

-----Original Message-----
From: Cynthia Shelly [mailto:cyns@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Mittwoch, 29. Januar 2014 02:32
To: James Craig
Cc: Bryan Garaventa; T.V Raman; jongund@illinois.edu; jason@jasonjgw.net; wai-xtech@w3.org; w3c-wai-pf@w3.org WAI-PFWG
Subject: RE: Summarizing the contentious history of re-opened PFWG-ISSUE-348: Consider renaming (now actually 'deprecating' in ARIA 1.1) role="presentation" to avoid avoid author confusion

Hmmm....
People don't like alt="" and may not like this for similar reasons.   

It can sometimes it can be difficult to teach, especially to people who don't really know the difference between null, empty string, none, blank and space.  There are many such people creating web content, though they are less likely to deal with aria than with alt.

Other than that issue, I've always been ok with alt="".  Does anyone recall why people dislike it?


-----Original Message-----
From: James Craig [mailto:jcraig@apple.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:26 PM
To: Cynthia Shelly
Cc: Bryan Garaventa; T.V Raman; jongund@illinois.edu; jason@jasonjgw.net; wai-xtech@w3.org; w3c-wai-pf@w3.org WAI-PFWG
Subject: Re: Summarizing the contentious history of re-opened PFWG-ISSUE-348: Consider renaming (now actually 'deprecating' in ARIA 1.1) role="presentation" to avoid avoid author confusion

What about role=""? An explicitly empty string for the role value could be a synonym for role="presentation"

On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Some of other ideas...
> 
> Role=text

FWIW, text is already on the table as a 1.1 role. 

ISSUE-435: Consider role="text" to expose elements (and contents) as static text node
https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/track/issues/435

> Role=plaintext
> Role=notag
> Role=layout (nice for tables, less sure about other tags) Role=span
> 
> I kind of like role=span.  I think it will be really obvious to html devs what this does.  It will be a little goofy to devs moving from Windows and other native platform APIs to web, but I think the parallel to HTML will be fairly easy to explain to them.  
> 
> I'd use something else for decorative images.  
> Maybe
> Role=decoration
> Role=deco
> Or keep presentation for this use, as it's pretty similar and widely deployed.
> 
> That could be combined with alt/longdesc/aria-describedby etc. to be read on user request, or with aria-hidden to make it silent.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Garaventa [mailto:bryan.garaventa@whatsock.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:22 PM
> To: T.V Raman; jongund@illinois.edu
> Cc: jason@jasonjgw.net; wai-xtech@w3.org; w3c-wai-pf@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Summarizing the contentious history of re-opened 
> PFWG-ISSUE-348: Consider renaming (now actually 'deprecating' in ARIA 
> 1.1) role="presentation" to avoid avoid author confusion
> 
> I'm having trouble understanding how role="inline" would convey to a developer that the role would remove the tag from the accessibility tree without hiding or removing any child content. Especially since the role would be applicable to all elements.
> 
> The word 'inline' to me, or 'block', seems to imply that it turns block level elements into inline elements or the reverse, which would be an incorrect assumption for developers.
> 
> Am I missing something?
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "T.V Raman" <raman@google.com>
> To: <jongund@illinois.edu>
> Cc: <jason@jasonjgw.net>; <wai-xtech@w3.org>; <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:54 AM
> Subject: RE: Summarizing the contentious history of re-opened
> PFWG-ISSUE-348: Consider renaming (now actually 'deprecating' in ARIA 
> 1.1) role="presentation" to avoid avoid author confusion
> 
> 
> Jon,
> Borrowing block/inline from CSS  as role values is a good idea; an even better idea is to just mirror over CSS state into the accessibility side, i.e. make display:inline  create an implicit role="inline"  on the ARIA  side, rather than asking  authors to write both.
> 
> Gunderson, Jon R writes:
>> Another idea is to borrow from the CSS concepts of "block" and "inline".
>> 
>> Role="block" and role="inline"
>> 
>> This would provide some semantics as to where the "text" content is part of something that stands on its own (e.g. block), versus part of something more (e.g. inline).
>> 
>> I know Cynthia Shelley and Rich have talked about concatenating text runs, and this would provide some way to give ATs a hint on how to do that and developers already have some idea what block and inline mean from CSS. 
> I am not sure how they would interpret "none", just like the confusion over "presentation".
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jason White [mailto:jason@jasonjgw.net]  > Sent: Monday, 
>> January 27, 2014 6:12 PM  > To: wai-xtech@w3.org; w3c-wai-pf@w3.org 
>> WAI-PFWG  > Subject: Re: Summarizing the contentious history of 
>> re-opened
> PFWG-ISSUE-348: Consider renaming (now actually 'deprecating' in ARIA 1.1) role="presentation" to avoid avoid author confusion  >  > James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the feedback Suzanne. Whether or not "none" is the best  > > replacement is irrelevant. The confusion is not around images. It it  > > around the use of role="presentation" on other elements. For example:
>>> 
>>> The following marking: <h4 role="presentation">Foo</h4>  > >  > > is effectively the same as: <div>Foo</div>  > >  >  > Perhaps role="generic" would be more descriptive for the uninitiated.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2014 07:38:26 UTC