On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Joanmarie Diggs <[email protected]> wrote:
> The reason one might wish to have the reverse relationship is if the > error messages could be encountered independently. Consider the > following scenario: > > 1. User fills out form > 2. User presses submit > 3. New page loads displaying the errors at the top with the form fields > reproduced below the list of errors > > (Yeah, it's artificial. But, you know, authors...) > > In the above scenario, the AT didn't provide the navigation to the error > as the result of some command. Thus the AT doesn't have anything to keep > track of. > if UI doesn't help the user to navigate to the errors, then AT probably shouldn't fix the UI. > > IF ATs will be expected to provide navigation between error messages and > elements with errors regardless of circumstances, THEN I think we need > the reverse relationship because doing a complete tree dive looking for > the element which points to the error is not reasonable. > > On the other hand, if my scenario is so artificial that it would never > happen, then I'm fine with having to keep track of the field before > moving the user to the error. > I would hold up on adding reverse relations until we are sure we have a real use case for it. > > --joanie > > > On 08/10/2016 08:33 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote: > > All reverse relations go at performance/memory cost, I would introduce > > them iff AT needs them. I'm not sure I see a valid scenario, when they > > were useful, thus deferring a decision to Joanie and Jamie, who knows > > more about AT internal gear than me. > > > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Those would be great. What would you have for reverse relationships? > > > > > > > > Rich Schwerdtfeger > > > > > > > > ----- Original message ----- > > From: Alexander Surkov <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > To: "[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>" > > <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>>, James Teh > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Joanmarie > > Diggs <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, Richard > > Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS > > Cc: > > Subject: aria-details and aria-errormessage mapping > > Date: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 2:12 PM > > > > Hi. > > > > ARIA 1.1 got two relation-like attributes: aria-details [1] and > > aria-errormessage [2], used to connect an element with content > > providing extra info. Rich mentioned that these attributes are > > likely need new IAccessible2 relations to expose them, which > > sounds reasonable. If that's the case, then we should end up > > with something like: > > > > An object containing details for the target object. > > IA2_RELATION_DETAILS > > An object containing an error message for the target object. > > IA2_RELATION_ERROR_MESSAGE > > Thanks. > > Alex. > > > > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#aria-details > > <https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#aria-details> > > [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#aria-errormessage > > <https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#aria-errormessage> > > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
