So, I think adding roles to the spec. is a good idea for HTML native elements - especially the new ones. If we have roles that are going to shop up in desktop and web apps I think it is a good idea to create roles for these and it does reduce the amount of parsing needed. However, At some point I think relying on role constants in the API is a problem as you have to redo the IDL all the time.
I absolutley believe that exposing object attributes should be standardized in their implementation. Those that are used today should be documented in the IA2 spec. I don't know that I would create anything special for landmarks because ATs do expand what ARIA uses for landmarks. While I don't agree with that this is something they believe their users would prefer. So, the net is, even if we define the set of landmarks we won't be able to expose all of what ATs expose as landmarks unless we do something like allow the AT to register what they use for landmarks. Then we could do something like have a method of isLandmark() or getLandmarksObjects(); Rich Schwerdtfeger CTO Accessibility Software Group From: David Bolter <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 11/24/2010 10:28 AM Subject: [Accessibility-ia2] about object attributes Sent by: [email protected] Hi again, I want to raise this issue in parallel to the IA2_ROLE_NOTE thread. I don't want to complicate that discussion since this one might take fair bit longer to resolve. One of the IA2 object attribute pairs that FF exposes is the aria roles string. So for example: <div role="navigation"> Will have the object attribute xml-roles=navigation. (I apologize for the "xml-" prefix, but that prefix is there for purely historical reasons as I understand it and is tangential to this discussion.) Now, one of the things we do for html landmarks like <nav> is expose it like we would the aria role=navigation, via an xml-roles object attribute. This allows AT that already work with our xml-roles (based on aria) to "just work" with <nav>. A couple of questions: 1. Should we strive to add roles to the IA2 spec such that we don't need to expose the role as an object attribute? 2. Should we promote the object attributes method as a first class solution and standardize how they are implemented? 3. Are landmark roles distinct enough to warrant a distinct way of exposing them? Hoping to hear thoughts from everyone, including AT devs. Cheers, David _______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
<<inline: graycol.gif>>
_______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
