Hi Alex, 

That is indeed what ARIA has as the HTML AAM points to that mapping in ARIA 
Core: http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/core-aam/core-aam.html#role-map-figure

and the HTML AAM points to it. So, for the figure role we are all set. 

Is that currently implemented in Firefox when you an element with 
role=“figure”? … ROLE_SYSTEM_GROUPING and xml-roles:figure object attribute.

If you do already, I will work with Windows ATVs to start supporting it on 
Windows. Please map that for for SVG elements when it is applied as well. Then 
we can discuss their participating in a list of figures in ATVs as part of the 
AT UIs. 


Rich Schwerdtfeger

> On Sep 15, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Alexander Surkov <asur...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Marcos.
> I'm getting lost in the discussion as it goes in two separate
> threads/groups (IAccessible2 one and SVG groups).
> I buy Doug's argument [1] that non browser SVG tools may not implement
> HTML, but still they are keen to support ARIA to make their products
> accessible. This argument can be a justification for ARIA figure role
> I think.
> Having said that, I'm adherent to the idea of re-using HTML elements
> in SVG documents. The author should be able to use standard HTML and
> SVG blocks to make the content accessible. <foreingObject> perhaps is
> not the most convenient structure to embed HTML into SVG, but it
> works, which makes ARIA role='figure' less valuable in the browser's
> word.
> I don't think that ARIA role='figure', implemented in the browsers,
> may harm anyone, I'd be interesting though to hear from other browsers
> on this topic.
> Rich, I think ARIA role='figure' should have same IAccessible2 mapping
> as HTML figure element has, which is ROLE_SYSTEM_GROUPING and
> xml-roles:figure object attribute.
> Thank you.
> Alexander.
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Sep/0053.html
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Marcos Caceres <mcace...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> On September 15, 2016 at 2:10:09 PM, Rich Schwerdtfeger
>> (richsch...@gmail.com) 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.
>> With all due respect, if Mozilla is supposed to implement this, we
>> need our queries addressed properly.
>> Mozilla's position is that developers should be able to use existing
>> HTML element/attributes in SVG, where they are
>> semantically/structurally useful. It clearly doesn't make sense to
>> redefine things that are in HTML in some new SVG version.
>> I would kindly ask that Alex's requests for clarification are addressed.
>> Kind regards,
>> Marcos

Accessibility-ia2 mailing list

Reply via email to