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
