Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Form role mapping

2016-09-07 Thread Richard Schwerdtfeger 
>*AT and browsers support those roles, if Firefox Nightly starts to expose IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK instead IA2_ROLE_FORM, then it >breaks all existing screen reader versions. In case of commercial screen readers this is painful for the users, since they have to buy a >new version of their screen reader. 
Good point. I will switch back to IA2_ROLE_FORM for forms. We still need IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK for the other land marks.
 
Rich
 
 
Rich Schwerdtfeger
 
 
- Original message -From: Alexander Surkov To: James Teh Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Brett Lewis , Joanmarie Diggs , IAccessible2 mailing list Subject: Re: Form role mappingDate: Wed, Sep 7, 2016 10:58 AM 
There's a point in discussing, the spec can be changed, if there's solid ground for that.My concerns are: * Both IA2 and ATK have a better role match for both role='form' and HTML form, which is ATK_ROLE_FORM and IA2_ROLE_FORM. Thus if there's no strong reason why we have to use a 'weaker' role, then I'd say we should go with the match. * AT and browsers support those roles, if Firefox Nightly starts to expose IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK instead IA2_ROLE_FORM, then it breaks all existing screen reader versions. In case of commercial screen readers this is painful for the users, since they have to buy a new version of their screen reader. * I'm not certain if changing IA2_ROLE_FORM to IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK adds any benefits for screen readers. I'd be curious to hear about them.
 
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:15 PM, James Teh  wrote:

Hi Rich,
 
I've already stated my view on this:
 
 
I understand the reason for the use of the landmark role for role="form". However, I disagree with the HTML form element being mapped to the landmark role because semantics are lost. The fact that something is a form has more semantic value than just being a landmark. Still, if the spec already requires this, I guess we have little choice but to comply at this stage. 

 At the end of the day, I'm not sure why this is still an open question, since it seems that the spec groups have already made a decision on this: 
The HTML the form element now uses the ARIA mappings for the form role. See "Use WAI-ARIA mapping” under the form element. This is for all platforms.In other words, we can't comply with the spec unless we do as you suggest, so there is no other choice. There is no point in discussing this further.Thanks,Jamie
 
On 7/09/2016 5:54 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
Jamie, Alex, Brett,
 
We need to reach consensus on the  element and role="form" mapping.
 
Can we agree on the following? :
 
1. that the IA2 IDL supports IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and IA2_ROLE_FORM (so that old versions of FF and other applications using the form role can still work with ATs)
2. For Firefox updates here on out the  element and role="form" map to IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and xml-roles="form"
 
This way AT vendors can check if something is a landmark to determine if something is a landmark and then expose xml-roles="form"
 
Eventually, it would be better to not have to make an exception for the Form role when all the other landmark roles are represented as IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK with xml-roles="form"
 
This and the other discussion items of the last 2 weeks are holding up 3 working groups - ARIA, HTML, and SVG.
 
Rich Schwerdtfeger
--James TehExecutive Director, NV Access LimitedPh +61 7 3149 3306www.nvaccess.orgFacebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccessTwitter: @NVAccessSIP: ja...@nvaccess.org 
 

___
Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Form role mapping

2016-09-07 Thread Brett Lewis 
Hi Rich,
I think this is fine.
This seems like a reasonable way to move forward.
Brett


Brett Lewis
VFO | Software Engineer
11800 31st Court North, St. Petersburg, FL 33716
T 727-299-6270
ble...@vfo-group.com
www.vfo-group.com


From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:sch...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 12:55 PM
To: ja...@nvaccess.org; surkov.alexan...@gmail.com; Brett Lewis 
; jdi...@igalia.com
Cc: accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Form role mapping

Jamie, Alex, Brett,

We need to reach consensus on the  element and role="form" mapping.

Can we agree on the following? :

1. that the IA2 IDL supports IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and IA2_ROLE_FORM (so that old 
versions of FF and other applications using the form role can still work with 
ATs)
2. For Firefox updates here on out the  element and role="form" map to 
IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and xml-roles="form"

This way AT vendors can check if something is a landmark to determine if 
something is a landmark and then expose xml-roles="form"

Eventually, it would be better to not have to make an exception for the Form 
role when all the other landmark roles are represented as IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK 
with xml-roles="form"

This and the other discussion items of the last 2 weeks are holding up 3 
working groups - ARIA, HTML, and SVG.



Rich Schwerdtfeger

___
Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Form role mapping

2016-09-07 Thread Alexander Surkov 
There's a point in discussing, the spec can be changed, if there's solid
ground for that.

My concerns are:

* Both IA2 and ATK have a better role match for both role='form' and HTML
form, which is ATK_ROLE_FORM and IA2_ROLE_FORM. Thus if there's no strong
reason why we have to use a 'weaker' role, then I'd say we should go with
the match.

* AT and browsers support those roles, if Firefox Nightly starts to expose
IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK instead IA2_ROLE_FORM, then it breaks all existing screen
reader versions. In case of commercial screen readers this is painful for
the users, since they have to buy a new version of their screen reader.

* I'm not certain if changing IA2_ROLE_FORM to IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK adds any
benefits for screen readers. I'd be curious to hear about them.

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:15 PM, James Teh  wrote:

> Hi Rich,
>
>
> I've already stated my view on this:
>
>
> I understand the reason for the use of the landmark role for role="form".
> However, I disagree with the HTML form element being mapped to the landmark
> role because semantics are lost. The fact that something is a form has more
> semantic value than just being a landmark. Still, if the spec already
> requires this, I guess we have little choice but to comply at this stage.
>
>
>
> At the end of the day, I'm not sure why this is still an open question,
> since it seems that the spec groups have already made a decision on this:
>
> The HTML the form element now uses the ARIA mappings for the form role.
> See "Use WAI-ARIA mapping” under the form element. This is for all
> platforms.
>
>
> In other words, we can't comply with the spec unless we do as you suggest,
> so there is no other choice. There is no point in discussing this further.
>
> Thanks,
> Jamie
>
>
> On 7/09/2016 5:54 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>
> Jamie, Alex, Brett,
>
> We need to reach consensus on the  element and role="form" mapping.
>
> Can we agree on the following? :
>
> 1. that the IA2 IDL supports IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and IA2_ROLE_FORM (so that
> old versions of FF and other applications using the form role can still
> work with ATs)
> 2. For Firefox updates here on out the  element and role="form" map
> to IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and xml-roles="form"
>
> This way AT vendors can check if something is a landmark to determine if
> something is a landmark and then expose xml-roles="form"
>
> Eventually, it would be better to not have to make an exception for the
> Form role when all the other landmark roles are represented as
> IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK with xml-roles="form"
>
> This and the other discussion items of the last 2 weeks are holding up 3
> working groups - ARIA, HTML, and SVG.
>
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>
> --
> James Teh
> Executive Director, NV Access Limited
> Ph +61 7 3149 3306www.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

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Form role mapping

2016-09-06 Thread Richard Schwerdtfeger 
Jamie,
 
I thought I addressed this before: The HTML AAM points to the ARIA core mapping specification now. They will implement what we have. One of the reasons ARIA in HTML is being held up is for us. The plan is for the host language platforms to use as much of the ARIA spec. as possible to avoid duplication of effort. Here is the link to the spec.: http://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/html-aam/html-aam.html
 
If you go down to the form element mapping you will see it says "Use WAI-ARIA mapping"
 
So, for backward compatibility you test for both the IA2 form role and all ARIA 1.1 and HTML 5.2 level browsers support the IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK for all landmarks and use the xml-roles object attribute to get the landmark type, ... in this case "form".
 
Rich
 
Rich Schwerdtfeger
 
 
- Original message -From: James Teh To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, surkov.alexan...@gmail.com, ble...@freedomscientific.com, jdi...@igalia.comCc: accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.orgSubject: Re: Form role mappingDate: Tue, Sep 6, 2016 6:15 PM 
Hi Rich,
 
I've already stated my view on this:
 
 
I understand the reason for the use of the landmark role for role="form". However, I disagree with the HTML form element being mapped to the landmark role because semantics are lost. The fact that something is a form has more semantic value than just being a landmark. Still, if the spec already requires this, I guess we have little choice but to comply at this stage. 

 At the end of the day, I'm not sure why this is still an open question, since it seems that the spec groups have already made a decision on this: 
The HTML the form element now uses the ARIA mappings for the form role. See "Use WAI-ARIA mapping” under the form element. This is for all platforms.In other words, we can't comply with the spec unless we do as you suggest, so there is no other choice. There is no point in discussing this further.Thanks,Jamie 
On 7/09/2016 5:54 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
Jamie, Alex, Brett,
 
We need to reach consensus on the  element and role="form" mapping.
 
Can we agree on the following? :
 
1. that the IA2 IDL supports IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and IA2_ROLE_FORM (so that old versions of FF and other applications using the form role can still work with ATs)
2. For Firefox updates here on out the  element and role="form" map to IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and xml-roles="form"
 
This way AT vendors can check if something is a landmark to determine if something is a landmark and then expose xml-roles="form"
 
Eventually, it would be better to not have to make an exception for the Form role when all the other landmark roles are represented as IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK with xml-roles="form"
 
This and the other discussion items of the last 2 weeks are holding up 3 working groups - ARIA, HTML, and SVG.
 
Rich Schwerdtfeger 

--James TehExecutive Director, NV Access LimitedPh +61 7 3149 3306www.nvaccess.orgFacebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccessTwitter: @NVAccessSIP: ja...@nvaccess.org
 

___
Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Form role mapping

2016-09-06 Thread James Teh 

Hi Rich,


I've already stated my view on this:


I understand the reason for the use of the landmark role for 
role="form". However, I disagree with the HTML form element being 
mapped to the landmark role because semantics are lost. The fact that 
something is a form has more semantic value than just being a 
landmark. Still, if the spec already requires this, I guess we have 
little choice but to comply at this stage.



At the end of the day, I'm not sure why this is still an open question, 
since it seems that the spec groups have already made a decision on this:


The HTML the form element now uses the ARIA mappings for the form 
role. See "Use WAI-ARIA mapping” under the form element. This is for 
all platforms.


In other words, we can't comply with the spec unless we do as you 
suggest, so there is no other choice. There is no point in discussing 
this further.


Thanks,
Jamie

On 7/09/2016 5:54 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:

Jamie, Alex, Brett,
We need to reach consensus on the  element and role="form" mapping.
Can we agree on the following? :
1. that the IA2 IDL supports IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and IA2_ROLE_FORM (so 
that old versions of FF and other applications using the form role can 
still work with ATs)
2. For Firefox updates here on out the  element and role="form" 
map to IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and xml-roles="form"
This way AT vendors can check if something is a landmark to determine 
if something is a landmark and then expose xml-roles="form"
Eventually, it would be better to not have to make an exception for 
the Form role when all the other landmark roles are represented as 
IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK with xml-roles="form"
This and the other discussion items of the last 2 weeks are holding up 
3 working groups - ARIA, HTML, and SVG.



Rich Schwerdtfeger



--
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