*The changelog might be slightly jumbled.* The only involvement I had was with the password role. I think both lines should be removed from the changelog as they add confusion based on their current placements (it reads as if it was in 1.0 and since removed).
*Thoughts* We should ensure ARIA provides clear justification for any other roles that already have HTML representation. I'm pretty sceptical of ARIA helping Accessibility. I think there is more impact when assistive and non-assistive improvements work together like <dialog>. On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:58 AM, Tantek Çelik <tan...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:10 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: > > Two W3C Proposed Recommendations are available for the membership of > > W3C (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final > > stage of being a W3C Recomendation: > > > > Core Accessibility API Mappings 1.1 > > https://www.w3.org/TR/core-aam-1.1/ > > https://w3c.github.io/aria/core-aam/core-aam.html > > Quick review, seems good, and we implement a good chunk of it per the > implementation report. > * https://w3c.github.io/test-results/core-aam/ > > tl;dr: Support Recommendation with comment > > Comment: > > Per the implementation report, it's hard to tell if there is at least > one implementation of each mapping (on any platform). The highest % > reported is 97% of mappings on a platform: > "WebKitGTK on Linux using ATK - DEMONSTRATES IMPLEMENTABILITY > status: 97% of mappings successfully implemented (231/237)" > > Does this mean 3% of the mappings are unimplemented anywhere? or are > those 6 mappings implemented on other platforms? > > We request clarification in the implementation report as to whether > each mapping is implemented on at least one platform, and if not (if > there are mappings unimplemented anywhere, we would be concerned (not > FO), that there may be a few mappings being standardized that did exit > reasonable common W3C CR exit criteria expectations. > > > > Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.1 > > https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/ > > https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/aria.html > > > Similarly quick review, seems good (aside from the RDF/OWL point > already made), and we implement a good chunk of it per the > implementation report. > * https://w3c.github.io/test-results/wai-aria/ > > tl;dr: Support Recommendation with comment > > Comment: > > (as dbaron noted) > > > The one comment I'd be inclined to make (based on feedback in that > > email thread) is: > > > > We're not entirely sure what to make of the RDF/OWL bits of this > > specification, which seem to be non-normative but also part of a > > plan for future extensibility. > > There's a lot of RDFisms sprinkled throughout the spec, normative parts > thereof. > > It doesn't seem like the RDFisms are essential to implementation > (which is why I presume the RDF/OWL references are in the Informative > section at the end). > > The only thing I would add to the comment would be a stronger note of > concern. Something like: > > We are concerned that the many inline references to RDF/OWL bits in > normative text imply (perhaps without intending to) a need to > implement RDF/OWL processing to implement the specification. Please > consider adding a note stating that RDF/OWL processing is not > essential to interoperably implementing the specification, we believe > such a note would help implementers of the specification. > > [If there is such a note / disclaimer already, I missed it in my > review of the spec] > > > > Deadline for responses: today (oops!) > > > > Normally I'd ask for comments, but there isn't really much time > > since this slipped through until I was sent email about it recently. > > But I could still incorporate feedback in the next few hours. > > The above are the only time-sensitive feedback items. > > > > (These are specs that we implement.) > > re: specs that we implement, for Firefox Platform Dev: > > Two things: > > 1. Do we have an Intent to Implement / Ship for the full testable > feature set of these specifications? (I couldn't find any such > "Intent" "ARIA" emails in dev-platform, but I may have missed it). > If not, could the implementing team please send after-the-fact > either/both Intent to Implement / Intent to Ship emails for both specs > to dev-platform? > > 2. Assuming we have such intent, do we have bugs filed in Bugzilla to > implement the remaining testable features of both specifications? (to > get the following %s to 100) > > From Core Mappings report above: > Firefox on Linux using ATK: 79% of mappings successfully implemented > (188/237) > Firefox on macOS using AX API:: 41% of mappings successfully > implemented (84/205) > Firefox on Windows using MSAA + IAccessible2: 75% of mappings > successfully implemented (181/242) > (or do we have documented somewhere reasoning why we won't implement > to 100% - and if so, do we have problems with some of the features?) > > From WAI ARiA report above: > no % tallies provided, but lots of red and yellow squares in the FF** > columns here: > https://w3c.github.io/test-results/wai-aria/all.html > > Feel free to follow-up to this part (re: specs that we implement) with > a reply-with-subject-change to start a new thread as needed. > > Thanks, > > Tantek > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
