Then give it a role but don't take a week of people's time arguing over it. We have harder problems to work on.
Rich Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:00 PM, James Teh <ja...@nvaccess.org> wrote: > > IMO, xml-roles is a really horrible hack. An object attribute makes sense for > things like landmarks because a landmark is more like an attribute of the > element, rather than how it behaves/what it is. I argued a long time ago that > landmark should have been a specific "landmark" attribute, but xml-roles is > nevertheless what we have now. Relying on this hack even further seems really > ugly to me. If figure is an important semantic construct, it really should > have a role, just like heading, etc. > > > Sent from a mobile device > >> On 17 Sep. 2016, at 9:33 am, Rich Schwerdtfeger <richsch...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I have not checked. We have been trying to work with you on this first and >> that has taken well over a week on just figure. We are now working with >> other browser and ATVs now. The current mapping also does not require an API >> change. >> >> >> Rich >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Sep 16, 2016, at 8:47 AM, Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexan...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Rich Schwerdtfeger <richsch...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> 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 attrib >>> >>> It's not yet implemented in Firefox. Btw, do you know if other browsers >>> have supported it? >>> >>>> >>>> If you do already, I will work with Windows ATVs to start supporting it on >>>> Windows. >>> >>> HTML:figure is accessible in Firefox. ARIA role='figure' should have >>> identical mapping. If screen readers support HTML:figure, then they don't >>> have to make any extra effort to support ARIA role='figure'. >>> >>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> 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
_______________________________________________ Accessibility-ia2 mailing list Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
