Getting back to the figure role...
In discussing this, I had actually forgotten that Firefox (and Chrome)
already maps the HTML figure tag to role grouping with xml-roles:figure.
My apologies. So, there's no controversy here about the role:
role="figure" should be mapped the same way as HTML figure (role
grouping and xml-roles:figure).
For reference, there was some controversy about this 5 years ago when
this decision was made. Back then, Alex and I argued it should be a
role, but others disagreed for backwards compat reasons. We ended up
agreeing to use xml-roles. The discussion is on this Mozilla bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=658272
Jamie
On 17/09/2016 11:25 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:
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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto:surkov.alexan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Rich Schwerdtfeger
<richsch...@gmail.com <mailto: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
<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 <mailto: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
<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 <mailto:mcace...@mozilla.com>> wrote:
On September 15, 2016 at 2:10:09 PM, Rich Schwerdtfeger
(richsch...@gmail.com <mailto: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
<mailto:Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2
<https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2>
_______________________________________________
Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org
<mailto: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
