> > I'm pretty sure Mozilla isn't interested in duplicating > semantics already implemented for HTML in SVG
Provision of a figure role in Acc APIs is not duplicating anything in HTML. It is about providing a cross technology identification of a feataure that does not currently have a specific definition. Currently <figure> is defined [1] (and implemented as such) as a group role in Acc APis with an accessible name derived from a child <figcaption> if there is one. The 'figure' role is exposed in some APIs as an object attribute "xml-roles:figure" but I don't think that this is actually used by any AT. I believe at least one AT implementer has indicated the use of object attributes to identify roles is not a preferred option due to technical overhead of the method. There has been discussion about a number of aspects of figure acc implementation, including whether deriving the acc name from figcaption is appropriate. Currently (in supporting AT/browser combos) announce the figcaption content and group role when <figure> recieves virtual focus. They figcaption content is announced again when it recieves virtual focus. This is suboptimal, but unless an element with group has an accessible name, it is generally not announced by AT, so the grouping of the figcaption with the content it captions is lost. Years ago when figure/figcaption was still newish i looked into how these elements could be mapped and came up with some suggestions [2] [1] https://w3c.github.io/aria/html-aam/html-aam.html#el-figure [2] https://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2011/08/html5-accessibility-chops-the-figure-and-figcaption-elements/ FWIW I still think that having ARIA figure role without an accompanying caption role is not going to be helpful as in order for aural UIs, at least, to convey useful info the figcaption semantics need to be identified. (IA2 already has a caption role and last i looked firefox epxoses it) -- Regards SteveF Current Standards Work @W3C <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/> On 15 September 2016 at 09:35, Anne van Kesteren <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:10 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Alex, both Doug and Anna have expressed to you the opinion of the SVG > > working group to not have those elements in SVG. At this point the > > discussion on adding or using them is not productive. > > I'm not sure who Anna is, but if you meant me, that's the opposite of > what I said. I'm pretty sure Mozilla isn't interested in duplicating > semantics already implemented for HTML in SVG, since you can just use > HTML in SVG. > > > -- > https://annevankesteren.nl/ >
_______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
