Hi James,
If you wanted to reuse the existing description relationships (with a separate description relationship instance) and place an object attribute on the error message target to indicate that it is an error message I think that makes perfect sense. It just can't be stringified. However, the errormessage is not to be stringified as the content must be visible and it will often have content in it, including links, that the user may need to navigate to to get help about the error. The aria referenced error messages are all required to be visible to apply the relatinship.
Rich Schwerdtfeger
----- Original message -----
From: James Teh <ja...@nvaccess.org>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org, jdi...@igalia.com, surkov.alexan...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: aria-details and aria-errormessage mapping
Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 7:46 PM
Hi Rich,
Thanks for the clear explanations; I really do appreciate it. Part of the confusion here is that I've unintentionally conflated aria-details with aria-errormessage.
Regarding aria-details, what you say absolutely makes sense. Given that, reading the details automatically as a simple message doesn't make sense anyway. Instead, we'd report their presence and let the user act, just as we do for longdesc now.
However, this same logic does not apply to errormessage. From an author perspective, I follow that we don't want error messages "stomping" on describedby. However, from an accessibility client perspective, I still don't see the difference. They could still be exposed as part of the description string if they're visible. Aside from being simpler, that would also be better for performance, since an AT doesn't then have to crawl the tree "stringifying" the error messages itself. Can you please explain why this approach doesn't work? Again, please note that I'm talking about the accessibility API mapping, *not* the ARIA attributes; I understand why errormessage and describedby are separate ARIA attributes for authors.
Thanks.
Jamie
On 20/08/2016 12:28 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:>I've already stated my view on this and asked several questions, but it seems key decisions have already been made, despite a lack of clarification around the concerns I've raised. >Given that this has basically become a circular time sink of an argument, I'll provide a final summary of my thoughts.
>1. With regard to stringification, I still haven't seen a single solid justification for why errormessage and details are different to description from a user perspective. It's been argued that >users should be able to get to the content and read it in its full semantic glory, but no one has pointed out a use case for why that is actually necessary for, say, an error message. Surely, >the desired UX for a screen reader is that it should read the error message when it appears, not force the user to press some key to jump there and review it. If we want to read the >message, we need to stringify it... and crawling the tree to stringify it ourselves is going to be a hideous perf problem.James,I appreciate your willingness to work with us on this. However, let me provide you with the full picture.1. Extended descriptions, referenced by aria-details was requested by the digital publishing industry. The extended description can have all kinds of markup in it and not just HTML: ChemML, MathML, SVG drawings, etc. It is intended as an extended, and sometimes alternative content to better illustrate what is being referenced. For these reasons it is essential that we *always* preserve content. In fact the stringification in many cases could be completely useless to a screen reader user. Also, for these reasons the intent is for it to be visible and not hidden as aria-describedby often is as it must be accessible to all users and not just the blind. Furthermore, there will be instances where the content will be contained within an IFrame within a details/summary element. The big thing here is stringification is simply the wrong thing to do and it must not happen in the browsers for extended descriptions.The second thing you need to understand is the aria-details attribute was created after months of fighting between browser vendors and people in the accessibility community over longdesc. We don't want to open up that pandora's box again. This is the solution that has come to place. aria-describedby simply does not meet the needs of digital publishing community. What is more they plan to support it in their digital books once a mechanism is put in place, within browsers, to show and hide content reference by aria-details in order to preserve the needs of publishers who don't want extended descriptions rendered by default. We definitely, don't want this functionality applied to aria-describedby.>2. Having errormessage/details as completely separate concepts from description means an AT now has two more things it has to fetch for *every single object that gets focus*. This is >yet another perf problem.Error messages are not the same as extended descriptions and we don't want the same functionality to duplicated with error messages as I described above. The need for error messages arose many major companies rendering visible, popup, error messages for each invalid form entry. They want to have people with disabilities get access to each error messages associated with the invalid control and they want to also have access to the hidden aria-describedby help information they provide for that control. So, stomping on one in favor of the other is a very bad experience. They are indeed distinct and separate concepts.
>3. That said, since the no description/no stringification decision has already been made (despite the concerns above which I raised months ago), relations is the only mapping that >doesn't violate the spec.See above. I hope I have addressed most of your concerns.
>4. Since we're not stringifying as part of description, it does not make sense to map these to the describedBy relation. Thus, we need two new relations.ok
>5. Reverse relations may well be useful in the future. However, if they're a potential perf problem, I agree it makes sense to wait until we have a use case, so long as implementers accept >that this use case may one day arise.
Joanie Diggs asked for reverse relationships as she wants to be able to traverse back to the source. She is on CC and will be back from vacation next week.Best,Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger----- Original message -----
From: James Teh <ja...@nvaccess.org>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, surkov.alexan...@gmail.com
Cc: accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org, jdi...@igalia.com
Subject: Re: aria-details and aria-errormessage mapping
Date: Thu, Aug 18, 2016 9:45 PM
Hi.
I've already stated my view on this and asked several questions, but it seems key decisions have already been made, despite a lack of clarification around the concerns I've raised. Given that this has basically become a circular time sink of an argument, I'll provide a final summary of my thoughts.
1. With regard to stringification, I still haven't seen a single solid justification for why errormessage and details are different to description from a user perspective. It's been argued that users should be able to get to the content and read it in its full semantic glory, but no one has pointed out a use case for why that is actually necessary for, say, an error message. Surely, the desired UX for a screen reader is that it should read the error message when it appears, not force the user to press some key to jump there and review it. If we want to read the message, we need to stringify it... and crawling the tree to stringify it ourselves is going to be a hideous perf problem.
2. Having errormessage/details as completely separate concepts from description means an AT now has two more things it has to fetch for *every single object that gets focus*. This is yet another perf problem.
3. That said, since the no description/no stringification decision has already been made (despite the concerns above which I raised months ago), relations is the only mapping that doesn't violate the spec.
4. Since we're not stringifying as part of description, it does not make sense to map these to the describedBy relation. Thus, we need two new relations.
5. Reverse relations may well be useful in the future. However, if they're a potential perf problem, I agree it makes sense to wait until we have a use case, so long as implementers accept that this use case may one day arise.
Thanks,
Jamie
On 19/08/2016 7:21 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:We *cannot* map aria-errormessage or aria-details to a string description. That is absolutely prohibited in the aria specification. It is not to be stringified. Neither is aria-details. Also, in the aria spec. if aria-details and aria-describedby cannot be mapped separately aria-details takes precedence.These are intended to be references so that we can also get access to the structural markup.Now, if you are going to overload the description relationships we need something on the target that indicates they are an error or an extended description. We need to have the distinctions. Object attributes are an option.Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger----- Original message -----
From: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexan...@gmail.com>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: "accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org" <accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, James Teh <ja...@nvaccess.org>, Joanmarie Diggs <jdi...@igalia.com>
Subject: Re: aria-details and aria-errormessage mapping
Date: Fri, Aug 12, 2016 7:42 PM
I'd love to hear Jamie on this honestly, but his wording was:
"To me, it sounds like errormessage just makes the rules slightly simplyDo we a real example/scenario where AT has to know that a message on the screen is an error message, and this knowledge would improve the user experience?
to make life simpler for authors; errormessage isn't presented unless
invalid is true, errormessage must be visible to be presented, etc. That
might be fair enough. However, that doesn't mean it's an entirely
fundamentally separate concept, and thus, there's a good argument for
mapping it to description in a11y APIs (with appropriate rules)."On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <sch...@us.ibm.com> wrote:Yes, we heard. So, we need to be able to differentiate an associated error message from a help descriptions. So, you could have a second aria-details relationship in the list of relationships as it would not be stringified (a necessity), BUT you would need to put something on the target ID container to indicate to the AT that it is an error message. Otherwise you need a different relationship. If you are not having reverse relationships and AT vendors would provide a mechanism to go back to the element that was invalid then you would be fine. The use cases we have seen in practices is that multiple form elements become invalid and each has an associated popup error message.We cannot mix descriptions and error messages and the error messages must be visible to all users to be mapped.Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger----- Original message -----
From: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexan...@gmail.com>To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: "accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org " <accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org >, James Teh <ja...@nvaccess.org>, Joanmarie Diggs <jdi...@igalia.com>
Subject: Re: aria-details and aria-errormessage mapping
Date: Wed, Aug 10, 2016 12:48 PM
Note, Jamie has been objecting against new relation for aria-errormessage [1].
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility- ia2/2016-April/002046.html On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexan...@gmail.com> 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 <sch...@us.ibm.com> wrote:Those would be great. What would you have for reverse relationships?
Rich Schwerdtfeger----- Original message -----
From: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexan...@gmail.com>
To: "accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org " <accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org >, James Teh <ja...@nvaccess.org>, Joanmarie Diggs <jdi...@igalia.com>, Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:
Subject: aria-details and aria-errormessage mapping
Date: Tue, Aug 9, 2016 2:12 PM
Hi.Alex.
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_DETAILSAn object containing an error message for the target object.IA2_RELATION_ERROR_MESSAGEThanks.--
James Teh
Executive Director, NV Access Limited
Ph +61 7 3149 3306
www.nvaccess.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess
Twitter: @NVAccess
SIP: ja...@nvaccess.org--
James Teh
Executive Director, NV Access Limited
Ph +61 7 3149 3306
www.nvaccess.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess
Twitter: @NVAccess
SIP: ja...@nvaccess.org
_______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
