I'd say we need have the reverse relations in both of specs (IA2 and UAIG) and implemented in the browsers, iff there's a valid use case for them, and intentions from screen readers to implement them.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <sch...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > To be clear, we would not document them in the mapping specification if > they are not implemented. > > When I say add them later I am referring to the mapping spec. and > browsers. However, doing that has ramifications for AT vendors. > > > Rich Schwerdtfeger > > > > ----- Original message ----- > From: James Teh <ja...@nvaccess.org> > To: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazz...@google.com>, Richard > Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org > Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Reverse relationships > Date: Wed, Sep 7, 2016 12:26 AM > > > That's fair. The only problem is that if they're documented in the mapping > spec, browsers are technically non-compliant if they don't implement. > > On 7/09/2016 2:58 PM, Dominic Mazzoni wrote: > > Is there any reason we shouldn't *define* the reverse relationships now? > Browsers can choose not to implement them now for performance reasons, and > AT can choose to ignore them. > > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:16 PM Richard Schwerdtfeger <sch...@us.ibm.com> > wrote: > > Jamie, > > > Well you can add reverse relationships later if it becomes an issue. The > only problem with adding it later is you will also then need to test if > that reverse relation ship exists and what to do with older browsers that > won't have the relationship. > > Rich > > > > Rich Schwerdtfeger > > > > ----- Original message ----- > From: James Teh <ja...@nvaccess.org> > To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, surkov.alexan...@gmail.com, > ble...@freedomscientific.com, jdi...@igalia.com > Cc: accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org > Subject: Re: Reverse relationships > Date: Tue, Sep 6, 2016 7:34 PM > > > As I noted previously: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Right now, we have no plans to implement a "jump to field for error > message" command or similar. Perhaps we will one day, but it seems flawed > to sacrifice performance for something no one is using yet. > > Jamie > > On 7/09/2016 5:56 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote: > > We need agreement: > > Should the error message and details relationships have reverse mappings? > > Rich > > > > Rich Schwerdtfeger > > > -- > 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 > > > -- > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
