Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-08-29 Thread Rich Schwerdtfeger
ok. So, it is up to Alex and Jamie. 

I would like to promote my core-asm branch either way ASAP. I just need a 
decision from Alex and/or Jamie.

Rich

Rich Schwerdtfeger




> On Aug 29, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Joanmarie Diggs <jdi...@igalia.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Rich.
> 
> Regarding your question, what I stated here still stands:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2016-August/002095.html
>  
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2016-August/002095.html>
> 
> Will authors expect that? Will users expect it? Will NVDA provide that?
> I don't know the answers to those questions. But if the answers turn out
> to be "yes," then I would want to support it in Orca. In which case I
> need the reverse relationship. If the answers are "no," then I see no
> need to do so in Orca either.
> 
> --joanie
> 
> On 08/29/2016 02:03 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>> Jamie, Alex,
>> 
>> There is far too much resistance to concatenating the description with
>> the error message. It will never carry with the working group. I am
>> sorry. Right now we are holding up ARIA in HTML in ARIA.
>> 
>> Can we agree:
>> 
>> 1. For the Firefox mapping of the form element, and ARIA 1.1 form role,
>> IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK is exposed with xml-roles="form"
>> 2. /IA2_ROLE_FORM/ will not be deprecated for backward compatibility
>> 3. We expose IA2_RELATION_DETAILS and IA2_RELATIONSHIP_ERROR_MESSAGE -
>> It that you both agreed on separate relationships and these were the
>> names Alex suggested.
>> 
>> Beyond that I need an answer on the reverse relationship that Joanie
>> requested. It you can't agree I will leave them out of the IA2 spec. I
>> do believe that Joanie might implement the reverse relationship for her
>> platform but I have not asked. Joanie?
>> 
>> Alex, would you please send me an updated IDL for IA2?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Rich
>> 
>> 
>> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>- Original message -
>>From: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richsch...@gmail.com>
>>Sent by: accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>To: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexan...@gmail.com>
>>Cc: Joseph Scheuhammer <cl...@alum.mit.edu>, Stefan Schnabel
>><stefan.schna...@sap.com>, Steven Faulkner
>><faulkner.st...@gmail.com>, IA2 List
>><accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org>, ARIA Working Group
>><public-a...@w3.org>
>>Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark
>>Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 7:20 AM
>> 
>>I would also argue that, today, navigating a web page should be by
>>regional landmarks first. They create a table of contents for the
>>page and we advise all IBM developers to ensure all content is
>>contained within a landmark. This way content is not orphaned. To
>>that end a form should be treated as a landmark and should appear in
>>the table of contents used for navigation by ATVs. 
>> 
>>We are way beyond one off landmarks (just a form) and starting with
>>heading navigation today. 
>> 
>>Rich
>>Rich Schwerdtfeger
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>On Aug 25, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger
>>><richsch...@gmail.com <mailto:richsch...@gmail.com> 
>>> <mailto:richsch...@gmail.com <mailto:richsch...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>Well it is used by the most pervasive apps on the planet using IA2
>>>already. Chrome, FF, and eclipse-based apps.
>>> 
>>>Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>On Aug 25, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Alexander Surkov
>>><surkov.alexan...@gmail.com <mailto:surkov.alexan...@gmail.com> 
>>> <mailto:surkov.alexan...@gmail.com <mailto:surkov.alexan...@gmail.com>>>
>>>wrote:
>>> 
>>>>I definitely agree that IA2 needs a flexible mechanism to expose
>>>>roles, I'm just not sure it should be xml-roles object attribute.
>>>> 
>>>>On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger
>>>><richsch...@gmail.com <mailto:richsch...@gmail.com> 
>>>> <mailto:richsch...@gmail.com <mailto:richsch...@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>Alex, those object attributes should have been included in
>>>>IA2 a long time ago. I in no way see these as a hack. Eclipse
>>>>uses them 

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-08-29 Thread Joanmarie Diggs
Hi Rich.

Regarding your question, what I stated here still stands:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2016-August/002095.html

Will authors expect that? Will users expect it? Will NVDA provide that?
I don't know the answers to those questions. But if the answers turn out
to be "yes," then I would want to support it in Orca. In which case I
need the reverse relationship. If the answers are "no," then I see no
need to do so in Orca either.

--joanie

On 08/29/2016 02:03 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> Jamie, Alex,
>  
> There is far too much resistance to concatenating the description with
> the error message. It will never carry with the working group. I am
> sorry. Right now we are holding up ARIA in HTML in ARIA.
>  
> Can we agree:
>  
> 1. For the Firefox mapping of the form element, and ARIA 1.1 form role,
> IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK is exposed with xml-roles="form"
> 2. /IA2_ROLE_FORM/ will not be deprecated for backward compatibility
> 3. We expose IA2_RELATION_DETAILS and IA2_RELATIONSHIP_ERROR_MESSAGE -
> It that you both agreed on separate relationships and these were the
> names Alex suggested.
>  
> Beyond that I need an answer on the reverse relationship that Joanie
> requested. It you can't agree I will leave them out of the IA2 spec. I
> do believe that Joanie might implement the reverse relationship for her
> platform but I have not asked. Joanie?
>  
> Alex, would you please send me an updated IDL for IA2?
>  
> Regards,
> Rich
> 
> 
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>  
>  
> 
> - Original message -
> From: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richsch...@gmail.com>
> Sent by: accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> To: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexan...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Joseph Scheuhammer <cl...@alum.mit.edu>, Stefan Schnabel
> <stefan.schna...@sap.com>, Steven Faulkner
> <faulkner.st...@gmail.com>, IA2 List
> <accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org>, ARIA Working Group
> <public-a...@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark
> Date: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 7:20 AM
>  
> I would also argue that, today, navigating a web page should be by
> regional landmarks first. They create a table of contents for the
> page and we advise all IBM developers to ensure all content is
> contained within a landmark. This way content is not orphaned. To
> that end a form should be treated as a landmark and should appear in
> the table of contents used for navigation by ATVs. 
>  
> We are way beyond one off landmarks (just a form) and starting with
> heading navigation today. 
>  
> Rich
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>  
> 
>  
>  
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger
>> <richsch...@gmail.com <mailto:richsch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> Well it is used by the most pervasive apps on the planet using IA2
>> already. Chrome, FF, and eclipse-based apps.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Alexander Surkov
>> <surkov.alexan...@gmail.com <mailto:surkov.alexan...@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>  
>>> I definitely agree that IA2 needs a flexible mechanism to expose
>>> roles, I'm just not sure it should be xml-roles object attribute.
>>>  
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger
>>> <richsch...@gmail.com <mailto:richsch...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alex, those object attributes should have been included in
>>> IA2 a long time ago. I in no way see these as a hack. Eclipse
>>> uses them too.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Alexander Surkov
>>> <surkov.alexan...@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:surkov.alexan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>  
>>>> This is true, however xml-roles is not standard attribute in
>>>> IA2, it's rather a browser specific hack to expose the
>>>> semantics, that otherwise was missed. So if the API provides
>>>> a way to expose an element semantics more fully, then I'd
>>>> say it's the way to go.
>>>>
>>>> Having said that, I'm also concerned about
>>>> backward-compatibility issue.
>>>>  
>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Joanmarie Diggs
>>>> <jdi...@igalia.c

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-08-29 Thread Richard Schwerdtfeger
Jamie, Alex,
 
There is far too much resistance to concatenating the description with the error message. It will never carry with the working group. I am sorry. Right now we are holding up ARIA in HTML in ARIA.
 
Can we agree:
 
1. For the Firefox mapping of the form element, and ARIA 1.1 form role, IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK is exposed with xml-roles="form"
2. IA2_ROLE_FORM will not be deprecated for backward compatibility
3. We expose IA2_RELATION_DETAILS and IA2_RELATIONSHIP_ERROR_MESSAGE - It that you both agreed on separate relationships and these were the names Alex suggested.
 
Beyond that I need an answer on the reverse relationship that Joanie requested. It you can't agree I will leave them out of the IA2 spec. I do believe that Joanie might implement the reverse relationship for her platform but I have not asked. Joanie?
 
Alex, would you please send me an updated IDL for IA2?
 
Regards,
Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger
 
 
- Original message -From: Rich Schwerdtfeger Sent by: accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.orgTo: Alexander Surkov Cc: Joseph Scheuhammer , Stefan Schnabel , Steven Faulkner , IA2 List , ARIA Working Group Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role LandmarkDate: Sun, Aug 28, 2016 7:20 AM I would also argue that, today, navigating a web page should be by regional landmarks first. They create a table of contents for the page and we advise all IBM developers to ensure all content is contained within a landmark. This way content is not orphaned. To that end a form should be treated as a landmark and should appear in the table of contents used for navigation by ATVs. 
 
We are way beyond one off landmarks (just a form) and starting with heading navigation today. 
 
Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger
   

On Aug 25, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger  wrote: 


Well it is used by the most pervasive apps on the planet using IA2 already. Chrome, FF, and eclipse-based apps.Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Alexander Surkov  wrote: 
I definitely agree that IA2 needs a flexible mechanism to expose roles, I'm just not sure it should be xml-roles object attribute.
 
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger  wrote:

Alex, those object attributes should have been included in IA2 a long time ago. I in no way see these as a hack. Eclipse uses them too.Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Alexander Surkov  wrote: 
This is true, however xml-roles is not standard attribute in IA2, it's rather a browser specific hack to expose the semantics, that otherwise was missed. So if the API provides a way to expose an element semantics more fully, then I'd say it's the way to go.Having said that, I'm also concerned about backward-compatibility issue.
 
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Joanmarie Diggs  wrote:

Sorry for being spammy, but with respect to the loss of semantics: Thetype of landmark is still being exposed via object attribute. So I'llstill know if an ATK_ROLE_LANDMARK is a form, or navigation, or 
On 08/25/2016 10:24 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:> Hi Alex, all.>> I don't recall saying "kill the form role" in ATK. We have no plans to> deprecate ATK_ROLE_FORM. Instead, I believe I said something along the> lines of the following:>> Q: Should HTML's form element be treated like a landmark for the>    purposes of navigation?>> If Yes: Map it to ATK_ROLE_LANDMARK> If No: Continue mapping it to ATK_ROLE_FORM>> --joanie>> On 08/25/2016 10:08 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:>> I don't think Jamie argues that FORM is not a landmark. The point is>> that FORM is a form and also a landmark. IA2 provides a special FORM>> role, which is used both for ARIA and HTML currently, and adopted by>> browsers and screen readers. If we use weaker role for forms, then we loose semantics as Jamie>> pointed out, and we make a not backward compatible change. All JAWS and>> other commercial screen reader users will have to buy a new screen>> reader version. ATK gained this role, because it doesn't have a mechanism to fetch all>> landmarks on a page other than query it by role. And thus they are ok to>> sacrifice ATK form role for performance reasons I think. Note, ATK world>> doesn't have so acute problem of backward compatibility as IA2 has, so>> they have a larger room for changes. IA2 landmark role is a ATK toll to>> keep IA2 compatible with, this is a primary reason, if I do understand>> that right. However I'm not confident too that we should take ATK path>> and kill a form role too. On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Schnabel, Stefan>> > wrote:     Hi James,     __ __     currently Jaws treats forms like 

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-08-28 Thread Rich Schwerdtfeger
I would also argue that, today, navigating a web page should be by regional 
landmarks first. They create a table of contents for the page and we advise all 
IBM developers to ensure all content is contained within a landmark. This way 
content is not orphaned. To that end a form should be treated as a landmark and 
should appear in the table of contents used for navigation by ATVs. 

We are way beyond one off landmarks (just a form) and starting with heading 
navigation today. 

Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger




> On Aug 25, 2016, at 10:51 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger  wrote:
> 
> Well it is used by the most pervasive apps on the planet using IA2 already. 
> Chrome, FF, and eclipse-based apps.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Aug 25, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Alexander Surkov  > wrote:
> 
>> I definitely agree that IA2 needs a flexible mechanism to expose roles, I'm 
>> just not sure it should be xml-roles object attribute.
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger > > wrote:
>> Alex, those object attributes should have been included in IA2 a long time 
>> ago. I in no way see these as a hack. Eclipse uses them too.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Alexander Surkov > > wrote:
>> 
>>> This is true, however xml-roles is not standard attribute in IA2, it's 
>>> rather a browser specific hack to expose the semantics, that otherwise was 
>>> missed. So if the API provides a way to expose an element semantics more 
>>> fully, then I'd say it's the way to go.
>>> 
>>> Having said that, I'm also concerned about backward-compatibility issue.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Joanmarie Diggs >> > wrote:
>>> Sorry for being spammy, but with respect to the loss of semantics: The
>>> type of landmark is still being exposed via object attribute. So I'll
>>> still know if an ATK_ROLE_LANDMARK is a form, or navigation, or 
>>> 
>>> On 08/25/2016 10:24 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
>>> > Hi Alex, all.
>>> >
>>> > I don't recall saying "kill the form role" in ATK. We have no plans to
>>> > deprecate ATK_ROLE_FORM. Instead, I believe I said something along the
>>> > lines of the following:
>>> >
>>> > Q: Should HTML's form element be treated like a landmark for the
>>> >purposes of navigation?
>>> >
>>> > If Yes: Map it to ATK_ROLE_LANDMARK
>>> > If No: Continue mapping it to ATK_ROLE_FORM
>>> >
>>> > --joanie
>>> >
>>> > On 08/25/2016 10:08 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
>>> >> I don't think Jamie argues that FORM is not a landmark. The point is
>>> >> that FORM is a form and also a landmark. IA2 provides a special FORM
>>> >> role, which is used both for ARIA and HTML currently, and adopted by
>>> >> browsers and screen readers.
>>> >>
>>> >> If we use weaker role for forms, then we loose semantics as Jamie
>>> >> pointed out, and we make a not backward compatible change. All JAWS and
>>> >> other commercial screen reader users will have to buy a new screen
>>> >> reader version.
>>> >>
>>> >> ATK gained this role, because it doesn't have a mechanism to fetch all
>>> >> landmarks on a page other than query it by role. And thus they are ok to
>>> >> sacrifice ATK form role for performance reasons I think. Note, ATK world
>>> >> doesn't have so acute problem of backward compatibility as IA2 has, so
>>> >> they have a larger room for changes. IA2 landmark role is a ATK toll to
>>> >> keep IA2 compatible with, this is a primary reason, if I do understand
>>> >> that right. However I'm not confident too that we should take ATK path
>>> >> and kill a form role too.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Schnabel, Stefan
>>> >>  
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi James,
>>> >>
>>> >> __ __
>>> >>
>>> >> currently Jaws treats forms like regions as landmarks, i.e. showing
>>> >> them in its landmarks dialog, too. They do this for reason, page
>>> >> structure is very clearly revealed by this. I consider this as a
>>> >> strong feature and do not like this changed.
>>> >>
>>> >> __ __
>>> >>
>>> >> The logic behind that is the pragmatic thinking that forms are
>>> >> landmark-like, too. And a “navigation” landmark can contain fairly
>>> >> complex content, too, not just a list of links.
>>> >>
>>> >> __ __
>>> >>
>>> >> Best Regards
>>> >>
>>> >> Stefan
>>> >>
>>> >> __ __
>>> >>
>>> >> *From:*James Teh [mailto:ja...@nvaccess.org 
>>> >> 
>>> >> >]
>>> >> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 25. August 2016 00:33
>>> >> *To:* Rich Schwerdtfeger 

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-08-25 Thread Rich Schwerdtfeger
Well it is used by the most pervasive apps on the planet using IA2 already. 
Chrome, FF, and eclipse-based apps.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 25, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Alexander Surkov  
> wrote:
> 
> I definitely agree that IA2 needs a flexible mechanism to expose roles, I'm 
> just not sure it should be xml-roles object attribute.
> 
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger  
>> wrote:
>> Alex, those object attributes should have been included in IA2 a long time 
>> ago. I in no way see these as a hack. Eclipse uses them too.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Alexander Surkov  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is true, however xml-roles is not standard attribute in IA2, it's 
>>> rather a browser specific hack to expose the semantics, that otherwise was 
>>> missed. So if the API provides a way to expose an element semantics more 
>>> fully, then I'd say it's the way to go.
>>> 
>>> Having said that, I'm also concerned about backward-compatibility issue.
>>> 
 On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Joanmarie Diggs  
 wrote:
 Sorry for being spammy, but with respect to the loss of semantics: The
 type of landmark is still being exposed via object attribute. So I'll
 still know if an ATK_ROLE_LANDMARK is a form, or navigation, or 
 
 On 08/25/2016 10:24 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
 > Hi Alex, all.
 >
 > I don't recall saying "kill the form role" in ATK. We have no plans to
 > deprecate ATK_ROLE_FORM. Instead, I believe I said something along the
 > lines of the following:
 >
 > Q: Should HTML's form element be treated like a landmark for the
 >purposes of navigation?
 >
 > If Yes: Map it to ATK_ROLE_LANDMARK
 > If No: Continue mapping it to ATK_ROLE_FORM
 >
 > --joanie
 >
 > On 08/25/2016 10:08 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
 >> I don't think Jamie argues that FORM is not a landmark. The point is
 >> that FORM is a form and also a landmark. IA2 provides a special FORM
 >> role, which is used both for ARIA and HTML currently, and adopted by
 >> browsers and screen readers.
 >>
 >> If we use weaker role for forms, then we loose semantics as Jamie
 >> pointed out, and we make a not backward compatible change. All JAWS and
 >> other commercial screen reader users will have to buy a new screen
 >> reader version.
 >>
 >> ATK gained this role, because it doesn't have a mechanism to fetch all
 >> landmarks on a page other than query it by role. And thus they are ok to
 >> sacrifice ATK form role for performance reasons I think. Note, ATK world
 >> doesn't have so acute problem of backward compatibility as IA2 has, so
 >> they have a larger room for changes. IA2 landmark role is a ATK toll to
 >> keep IA2 compatible with, this is a primary reason, if I do understand
 >> that right. However I'm not confident too that we should take ATK path
 >> and kill a form role too.
 >>
 >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Schnabel, Stefan
 >> > wrote:
 >>
 >> Hi James,
 >>
 >> __ __
 >>
 >> currently Jaws treats forms like regions as landmarks, i.e. showing
 >> them in its landmarks dialog, too. They do this for reason, page
 >> structure is very clearly revealed by this. I consider this as a
 >> strong feature and do not like this changed.
 >>
 >> __ __
 >>
 >> The logic behind that is the pragmatic thinking that forms are
 >> landmark-like, too. And a “navigation” landmark can contain fairly
 >> complex content, too, not just a list of links.
 >>
 >> __ __
 >>
 >> Best Regards
 >>
 >> Stefan
 >>
 >> __ __
 >>
 >> *From:*James Teh [mailto:ja...@nvaccess.org
 >> ]
 >> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 25. August 2016 00:33
 >> *To:* Rich Schwerdtfeger > >
 >> *Cc:* Alexander Surkov > >; Joseph Scheuhammer
 >> >; Joanmarie Diggs
 >> >; IA2 List
 >> > >; ARIA Working
 >> Group >; Steven
 >> Faulkner > >
 >> *Subject:* Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark
 >>
 >> __ __
 >>
 >> Hi Rich,
 >>
 >> __ __
 >>
 >> 

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-08-25 Thread Alexander Surkov
I definitely agree that IA2 needs a flexible mechanism to expose roles, I'm
just not sure it should be xml-roles object attribute.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger 
wrote:

> Alex, those object attributes should have been included in IA2 a long time
> ago. I in no way see these as a hack. Eclipse uses them too.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Alexander Surkov 
> wrote:
>
> This is true, however xml-roles is not standard attribute in IA2, it's
> rather a browser specific hack to expose the semantics, that otherwise was
> missed. So if the API provides a way to expose an element semantics more
> fully, then I'd say it's the way to go.
>
> Having said that, I'm also concerned about backward-compatibility issue.
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Joanmarie Diggs 
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry for being spammy, but with respect to the loss of semantics: The
>> type of landmark is still being exposed via object attribute. So I'll
>> still know if an ATK_ROLE_LANDMARK is a form, or navigation, or 
>>
>> On 08/25/2016 10:24 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
>> > Hi Alex, all.
>> >
>> > I don't recall saying "kill the form role" in ATK. We have no plans to
>> > deprecate ATK_ROLE_FORM. Instead, I believe I said something along the
>> > lines of the following:
>> >
>> > Q: Should HTML's form element be treated like a landmark for the
>> >purposes of navigation?
>> >
>> > If Yes: Map it to ATK_ROLE_LANDMARK
>> > If No: Continue mapping it to ATK_ROLE_FORM
>> >
>> > --joanie
>> >
>> > On 08/25/2016 10:08 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
>> >> I don't think Jamie argues that FORM is not a landmark. The point is
>> >> that FORM is a form and also a landmark. IA2 provides a special FORM
>> >> role, which is used both for ARIA and HTML currently, and adopted by
>> >> browsers and screen readers.
>> >>
>> >> If we use weaker role for forms, then we loose semantics as Jamie
>> >> pointed out, and we make a not backward compatible change. All JAWS and
>> >> other commercial screen reader users will have to buy a new screen
>> >> reader version.
>> >>
>> >> ATK gained this role, because it doesn't have a mechanism to fetch all
>> >> landmarks on a page other than query it by role. And thus they are ok
>> to
>> >> sacrifice ATK form role for performance reasons I think. Note, ATK
>> world
>> >> doesn't have so acute problem of backward compatibility as IA2 has, so
>> >> they have a larger room for changes. IA2 landmark role is a ATK toll to
>> >> keep IA2 compatible with, this is a primary reason, if I do understand
>> >> that right. However I'm not confident too that we should take ATK path
>> >> and kill a form role too.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Schnabel, Stefan
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi James,
>> >>
>> >> __ __
>> >>
>> >> currently Jaws treats forms like regions as landmarks, i.e. showing
>> >> them in its landmarks dialog, too. They do this for reason, page
>> >> structure is very clearly revealed by this. I consider this as a
>> >> strong feature and do not like this changed.
>> >>
>> >> __ __
>> >>
>> >> The logic behind that is the pragmatic thinking that forms are
>> >> landmark-like, too. And a “navigation” landmark can contain fairly
>> >> complex content, too, not just a list of links.
>> >>
>> >> __ __
>> >>
>> >> Best Regards
>> >>
>> >> Stefan
>> >>
>> >> __ __
>> >>
>> >> *From:*James Teh [mailto:ja...@nvaccess.org
>> >> ]
>> >> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 25. August 2016 00:33
>> >> *To:* Rich Schwerdtfeger > >> >
>> >> *Cc:* Alexander Surkov > >> >; Joseph Scheuhammer
>> >> >; Joanmarie Diggs
>> >> >; IA2 List
>> >> > >> >; ARIA
>> Working
>> >> Group >; Steven
>> >> Faulkner > om>>
>> >> *Subject:* Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark
>> >>
>> >> __ __
>> >>
>> >> Hi Rich,
>> >>
>> >> __ __
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-08-25 Thread Rich Schwerdtfeger
Alex, those object attributes should have been included in IA2 a long time ago. 
I in no way see these as a hack. Eclipse uses them too.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Alexander Surkov  
> wrote:
> 
> This is true, however xml-roles is not standard attribute in IA2, it's rather 
> a browser specific hack to expose the semantics, that otherwise was missed. 
> So if the API provides a way to expose an element semantics more fully, then 
> I'd say it's the way to go.
> 
> Having said that, I'm also concerned about backward-compatibility issue.
> 
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Joanmarie Diggs  wrote:
>> Sorry for being spammy, but with respect to the loss of semantics: The
>> type of landmark is still being exposed via object attribute. So I'll
>> still know if an ATK_ROLE_LANDMARK is a form, or navigation, or 
>> 
>> On 08/25/2016 10:24 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
>> > Hi Alex, all.
>> >
>> > I don't recall saying "kill the form role" in ATK. We have no plans to
>> > deprecate ATK_ROLE_FORM. Instead, I believe I said something along the
>> > lines of the following:
>> >
>> > Q: Should HTML's form element be treated like a landmark for the
>> >purposes of navigation?
>> >
>> > If Yes: Map it to ATK_ROLE_LANDMARK
>> > If No: Continue mapping it to ATK_ROLE_FORM
>> >
>> > --joanie
>> >
>> > On 08/25/2016 10:08 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
>> >> I don't think Jamie argues that FORM is not a landmark. The point is
>> >> that FORM is a form and also a landmark. IA2 provides a special FORM
>> >> role, which is used both for ARIA and HTML currently, and adopted by
>> >> browsers and screen readers.
>> >>
>> >> If we use weaker role for forms, then we loose semantics as Jamie
>> >> pointed out, and we make a not backward compatible change. All JAWS and
>> >> other commercial screen reader users will have to buy a new screen
>> >> reader version.
>> >>
>> >> ATK gained this role, because it doesn't have a mechanism to fetch all
>> >> landmarks on a page other than query it by role. And thus they are ok to
>> >> sacrifice ATK form role for performance reasons I think. Note, ATK world
>> >> doesn't have so acute problem of backward compatibility as IA2 has, so
>> >> they have a larger room for changes. IA2 landmark role is a ATK toll to
>> >> keep IA2 compatible with, this is a primary reason, if I do understand
>> >> that right. However I'm not confident too that we should take ATK path
>> >> and kill a form role too.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Schnabel, Stefan
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi James,
>> >>
>> >> __ __
>> >>
>> >> currently Jaws treats forms like regions as landmarks, i.e. showing
>> >> them in its landmarks dialog, too. They do this for reason, page
>> >> structure is very clearly revealed by this. I consider this as a
>> >> strong feature and do not like this changed.
>> >>
>> >> __ __
>> >>
>> >> The logic behind that is the pragmatic thinking that forms are
>> >> landmark-like, too. And a “navigation” landmark can contain fairly
>> >> complex content, too, not just a list of links.
>> >>
>> >> __ __
>> >>
>> >> Best Regards
>> >>
>> >> Stefan
>> >>
>> >> __ __
>> >>
>> >> *From:*James Teh [mailto:ja...@nvaccess.org
>> >> ]
>> >> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 25. August 2016 00:33
>> >> *To:* Rich Schwerdtfeger > >> >
>> >> *Cc:* Alexander Surkov > >> >; Joseph Scheuhammer
>> >> >; Joanmarie Diggs
>> >> >; IA2 List
>> >> > >> >; ARIA Working
>> >> Group >; Steven
>> >> Faulkner >
>> >> *Subject:* Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark
>> >>
>> >> __ __
>> >>
>> >> Hi Rich,
>> >>
>> >> __ __
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jamie
>> >>
>> >> On 25/08/2016 3:08 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Jamie,  
>> >>
>> >> __ __
>> >>
>> >> The point is we want ALL the landmarks to be treated the same
>> >> 

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-08-25 Thread Alexander Surkov
This is true, however xml-roles is not standard attribute in IA2, it's
rather a browser specific hack to expose the semantics, that otherwise was
missed. So if the API provides a way to expose an element semantics more
fully, then I'd say it's the way to go.

Having said that, I'm also concerned about backward-compatibility issue.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Joanmarie Diggs  wrote:

> Sorry for being spammy, but with respect to the loss of semantics: The
> type of landmark is still being exposed via object attribute. So I'll
> still know if an ATK_ROLE_LANDMARK is a form, or navigation, or 
>
> On 08/25/2016 10:24 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
> > Hi Alex, all.
> >
> > I don't recall saying "kill the form role" in ATK. We have no plans to
> > deprecate ATK_ROLE_FORM. Instead, I believe I said something along the
> > lines of the following:
> >
> > Q: Should HTML's form element be treated like a landmark for the
> >purposes of navigation?
> >
> > If Yes: Map it to ATK_ROLE_LANDMARK
> > If No: Continue mapping it to ATK_ROLE_FORM
> >
> > --joanie
> >
> > On 08/25/2016 10:08 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
> >> I don't think Jamie argues that FORM is not a landmark. The point is
> >> that FORM is a form and also a landmark. IA2 provides a special FORM
> >> role, which is used both for ARIA and HTML currently, and adopted by
> >> browsers and screen readers.
> >>
> >> If we use weaker role for forms, then we loose semantics as Jamie
> >> pointed out, and we make a not backward compatible change. All JAWS and
> >> other commercial screen reader users will have to buy a new screen
> >> reader version.
> >>
> >> ATK gained this role, because it doesn't have a mechanism to fetch all
> >> landmarks on a page other than query it by role. And thus they are ok to
> >> sacrifice ATK form role for performance reasons I think. Note, ATK world
> >> doesn't have so acute problem of backward compatibility as IA2 has, so
> >> they have a larger room for changes. IA2 landmark role is a ATK toll to
> >> keep IA2 compatible with, this is a primary reason, if I do understand
> >> that right. However I'm not confident too that we should take ATK path
> >> and kill a form role too.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Schnabel, Stefan
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi James,
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> currently Jaws treats forms like regions as landmarks, i.e. showing
> >> them in its landmarks dialog, too. They do this for reason, page
> >> structure is very clearly revealed by this. I consider this as a
> >> strong feature and do not like this changed.
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> The logic behind that is the pragmatic thinking that forms are
> >> landmark-like, too. And a “navigation” landmark can contain fairly
> >> complex content, too, not just a list of links.
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Best Regards
> >>
> >> Stefan
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> *From:*James Teh [mailto:ja...@nvaccess.org
> >> ]
> >> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 25. August 2016 00:33
> >> *To:* Rich Schwerdtfeger  >> >
> >> *Cc:* Alexander Surkov  >> >; Joseph Scheuhammer
> >> >; Joanmarie Diggs
> >> >; IA2 List
> >>  >> >; ARIA
> Working
> >> Group >; Steven
> >> Faulkner  >>
> >> *Subject:* Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Hi Rich,
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >> Jamie
> >>
> >> On 25/08/2016 3:08 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> >>
> >> Jamie,  
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> The point is we want ALL the landmarks to be treated the same
> >> way for ATVs. So, first we determine that it is a landmark. Then
> >> we go to xml-roles to determine the type of landmark. 
> >>
> >> __ __
> >>
> >> Otherwise, we need a special case for a form. That is what we
> >> are trying to avoid. For these reasons ATK/ATSPI created a
> >> landmark role first. 
> >>
> >> 

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-08-25 Thread Alexander Surkov
Hi, Joanie.

I'd say HTML form is a landmark as any other form in the world, but I let
judge others on this.

If there's no use case for ATK form role, then what is a reason to keep it?

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Joanmarie Diggs  wrote:

> Hi Alex, all.
>
> I don't recall saying "kill the form role" in ATK. We have no plans to
> deprecate ATK_ROLE_FORM. Instead, I believe I said something along the
> lines of the following:
>
> Q: Should HTML's form element be treated like a landmark for the
>purposes of navigation?
>
> If Yes: Map it to ATK_ROLE_LANDMARK
> If No: Continue mapping it to ATK_ROLE_FORM
>
> --joanie
>
> On 08/25/2016 10:08 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
> > I don't think Jamie argues that FORM is not a landmark. The point is
> > that FORM is a form and also a landmark. IA2 provides a special FORM
> > role, which is used both for ARIA and HTML currently, and adopted by
> > browsers and screen readers.
> >
> > If we use weaker role for forms, then we loose semantics as Jamie
> > pointed out, and we make a not backward compatible change. All JAWS and
> > other commercial screen reader users will have to buy a new screen
> > reader version.
> >
> > ATK gained this role, because it doesn't have a mechanism to fetch all
> > landmarks on a page other than query it by role. And thus they are ok to
> > sacrifice ATK form role for performance reasons I think. Note, ATK world
> > doesn't have so acute problem of backward compatibility as IA2 has, so
> > they have a larger room for changes. IA2 landmark role is a ATK toll to
> > keep IA2 compatible with, this is a primary reason, if I do understand
> > that right. However I'm not confident too that we should take ATK path
> > and kill a form role too.
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Schnabel, Stefan
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Hi James,
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > currently Jaws treats forms like regions as landmarks, i.e. showing
> > them in its landmarks dialog, too. They do this for reason, page
> > structure is very clearly revealed by this. I consider this as a
> > strong feature and do not like this changed.
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > The logic behind that is the pragmatic thinking that forms are
> > landmark-like, too. And a “navigation” landmark can contain fairly
> > complex content, too, not just a list of links.
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > *From:*James Teh [mailto:ja...@nvaccess.org
> > ]
> > *Sent:* Donnerstag, 25. August 2016 00:33
> > *To:* Rich Schwerdtfeger  > >
> > *Cc:* Alexander Surkov  > >; Joseph Scheuhammer
> > >; Joanmarie Diggs
> > >; IA2 List
> >  > >; ARIA Working
> > Group >; Steven
> > Faulkner  >>
> > *Subject:* Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > Hi Rich,
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Jamie
> >
> > On 25/08/2016 3:08 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> >
> > Jamie,  
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > The point is we want ALL the landmarks to be treated the same
> > way for ATVs. So, first we determine that it is a landmark. Then
> > we go to xml-roles to determine the type of landmark. 
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > Otherwise, we need a special case for a form. That is what we
> > are trying to avoid. For these reasons ATK/ATSPI created a
> > landmark role first. 
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/html-aam/html-aam.html
> > 
> >
> > __ __
> >
> > We do understand that non-browser applications may still use the
> > older Form role mapping as would older browser 

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-08-25 Thread Alexander Surkov
I don't think Jamie argues that FORM is not a landmark. The point is that
FORM is a form and also a landmark. IA2 provides a special FORM role, which
is used both for ARIA and HTML currently, and adopted by browsers and
screen readers.

If we use weaker role for forms, then we loose semantics as Jamie pointed
out, and we make a not backward compatible change. All JAWS and other
commercial screen reader users will have to buy a new screen reader version.

ATK gained this role, because it doesn't have a mechanism to fetch all
landmarks on a page other than query it by role. And thus they are ok to
sacrifice ATK form role for performance reasons I think. Note, ATK world
doesn't have so acute problem of backward compatibility as IA2 has, so they
have a larger room for changes. IA2 landmark role is a ATK toll to keep IA2
compatible with, this is a primary reason, if I do understand that right.
However I'm not confident too that we should take ATK path and kill a form
role too.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Schnabel, Stefan <stefan.schna...@sap.com>
wrote:

> Hi James,
>
>
>
> currently Jaws treats forms like regions as landmarks, i.e. showing them
> in its landmarks dialog, too. They do this for reason, page structure is
> very clearly revealed by this. I consider this as a strong feature and do
> not like this changed.
>
>
>
> The logic behind that is the pragmatic thinking that forms are
> landmark-like, too. And a “navigation” landmark can contain fairly complex
> content, too, not just a list of links.
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
> *From:* James Teh [mailto:ja...@nvaccess.org]
> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 25. August 2016 00:33
> *To:* Rich Schwerdtfeger <richsch...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexan...@gmail.com>; Joseph Scheuhammer <
> cl...@alum.mit.edu>; Joanmarie Diggs <jdi...@igalia.com>; IA2 List <
> accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org>; ARIA Working Group <
> public-a...@w3.org>; Steven Faulkner <faulkner.st...@gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark
>
>
>
> Hi Rich,
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Jamie
>
> On 25/08/2016 3:08 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>
> Jamie,
>
>
>
> The point is we want ALL the landmarks to be treated the same way for
> ATVs. So, first we determine that it is a landmark. Then we go to xml-roles
> to determine the type of landmark.
>
>
>
> Otherwise, we need a special case for a form. That is what we are trying
> to avoid. For these reasons ATK/ATSPI created a landmark role first.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/html-aam/html-aam.html
>
>
>
> We do understand that non-browser applications may still use the older
> Form role mapping as would older browser versions. It is for these reasons
> that our definition of deprecation is that it has not gone a way but rather
> it is going to this new preferred mapping.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2016, at 7:35 PM, James Teh <ja...@nvaccess.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> If you believe that role="form" has no semantic value other than being a
> landmark, then let's go ahead and map it to IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK. On the other
> hand, the HTML form tag *does* have semantic value other than being a
> landmark, so I'd argue it should be IA2_ROLE_FORM.
>
>
>
> On 24/08/2016 5:22 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>
> We are not asking that IA2_ROLE_FORM be deprecated altogether. Even with
> ARIA we have some attributes that re deprecated but that is meant so that
> there will be a replacement solution. An example is the drag and drop aria
> properties. For ARIA browser conformance testing to exit Candidate
> Recommendation we will be testing for IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK on form roles.
>
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 18, 2016, at 9:56 PM, James Teh <ja...@nvaccess.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/08/2016 2:58 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
>
> 1) adding IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and
>
> Yes.
>
>
> 2) deprecating IA2_

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-08-25 Thread Schnabel, Stefan
Hi James,

currently Jaws treats forms like regions as landmarks, i.e. showing them in its 
landmarks dialog, too. They do this for reason, page structure is very clearly 
revealed by this. I consider this as a strong feature and do not like this 
changed.

The logic behind that is the pragmatic thinking that forms are landmark-like, 
too. And a "navigation" landmark can contain fairly complex content, too, not 
just a list of links.

Best Regards
Stefan

From: James Teh [mailto:ja...@nvaccess.org]
Sent: Donnerstag, 25. August 2016 00:33
To: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richsch...@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexan...@gmail.com>; Joseph Scheuhammer 
<cl...@alum.mit.edu>; Joanmarie Diggs <jdi...@igalia.com>; IA2 List 
<accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org>; ARIA Working Group 
<public-a...@w3.org>; Steven Faulkner <faulkner.st...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark


Hi Rich,



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.

Jamie
On 25/08/2016 3:08 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:
Jamie,

The point is we want ALL the landmarks to be treated the same way for ATVs. So, 
first we determine that it is a landmark. Then we go to xml-roles to determine 
the type of landmark.

Otherwise, we need a special case for a form. That is what we are trying to 
avoid. For these reasons ATK/ATSPI created a landmark role first.

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.

https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/html-aam/html-aam.html

We do understand that non-browser applications may still use the older Form 
role mapping as would older browser versions. It is for these reasons that our 
definition of deprecation is that it has not gone a way but rather it is going 
to this new preferred mapping.

Best,

Rich



Rich Schwerdtfeger



On Aug 23, 2016, at 7:35 PM, James Teh 
<ja...@nvaccess.org<mailto:ja...@nvaccess.org>> wrote:

If you believe that role="form" has no semantic value other than being a 
landmark, then let's go ahead and map it to IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK. On the other 
hand, the HTML form tag *does* have semantic value other than being a landmark, 
so I'd argue it should be IA2_ROLE_FORM.

On 24/08/2016 5:22 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:
We are not asking that IA2_ROLE_FORM be deprecated altogether. Even with ARIA 
we have some attributes that re deprecated but that is meant so that there will 
be a replacement solution. An example is the drag and drop aria properties. For 
ARIA browser conformance testing to exit Candidate Recommendation we will be 
testing for IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK on form roles.

Rich Schwerdtfeger



On Aug 18, 2016, at 9:56 PM, James Teh 
<ja...@nvaccess.org<mailto:ja...@nvaccess.org>> wrote:

On 11/08/2016 2:58 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:

1) adding IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and
Yes.


2) deprecating IA2_ROLE_FORM?
I'd argue that there is more semantic value in a "form" than just the fact that 
it is a landmark. This probably doesn't apply to ARIA (at least for now), since 
role="form" is defined as only a landmark. However, I'd argue it does apply to 
the HTML form tag. So, I'm fine t not use IA2_ROLE_FORM for ARIA role="form", 
but I'm dubious about deprecating it altogether, including for the HTML form 
tag.
Jamie

--
James Teh
Executive Director, NV Access Limited
Ph +61 7 3149 3306
www.nvaccess.org<http://www.nvaccess.org/>
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess
Twitter: @NVAccess
SIP: ja...@nvaccess.org<mailto:ja...@nvaccess.org>




--

James Teh

Executive Director, NV Access Limited

Ph +61 7 3149 3306

www.nvaccess.org<http://www.nvaccess.org/>

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess

Twitter: @NVAccess

SIP: ja...@nvaccess.org<mailto:ja...@nvaccess.org>




--

James Teh

Executive Director, NV Access Limited

Ph +61 7 3149 3306

www.nvaccess.org<http://www.nvaccess.org>

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccess

Twitter: @NVAccess

SIP: ja...@nvaccess.org<mailto:ja...@nvaccess.org>
___
Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-08-24 Thread James Teh

Hi Rich,


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.



Jamie

On 25/08/2016 3:08 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:

Jamie,

The point is we want ALL the landmarks to be treated the same way for 
ATVs. So, first we determine that it is a landmark. Then we go to 
xml-roles to determine the type of landmark.


Otherwise, we need a special case for a form. That is what we are 
trying to avoid. For these reasons ATK/ATSPI created a landmark role 
first.


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.


https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/html-aam/html-aam.html

We do understand that non-browser applications may still use the older 
Form role mapping as would older browser versions. It is for these 
reasons that our definition of deprecation is that it has not gone a 
way but rather it is going to this new preferred mapping.


Best,

Rich



Rich Schwerdtfeger




On Aug 23, 2016, at 7:35 PM, James Teh > wrote:


If you believe that role="form" has no semantic value other than 
being a landmark, then let's go ahead and map it to 
IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK. On the other hand, the HTML form tag *does* have 
semantic value other than being a landmark, so I'd argue it should be 
IA2_ROLE_FORM.



On 24/08/2016 5:22 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:
We are not asking that IA2_ROLE_FORM be deprecated altogether. Even 
with ARIA we have some attributes that re deprecated but that is 
meant so that there will be a replacement solution. An example is 
the drag and drop aria properties. For ARIA browser conformance 
testing to exit Candidate Recommendation we will be testing for 
IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK on form roles.


Rich Schwerdtfeger




On Aug 18, 2016, at 9:56 PM, James Teh > wrote:


On 11/08/2016 2:58 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:

1) adding IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and

Yes.


2) deprecating IA2_ROLE_FORM?
I'd argue that there is more semantic value in a "form" than just 
the fact that it is a landmark. This probably doesn't apply to ARIA 
(at least for now), since role="form" is defined as only a 
landmark. However, I'd argue it does apply to the HTML form tag. 
So, I'm fine t not use IA2_ROLE_FORM for ARIA role="form", but I'm 
dubious about deprecating it altogether, including for the HTML 
form tag.

Jamie

--
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





--
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




--
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


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-08-24 Thread Rich Schwerdtfeger
Jamie, 

The point is we want ALL the landmarks to be treated the same way for ATVs. So, 
first we determine that it is a landmark. Then we go to xml-roles to determine 
the type of landmark. 

Otherwise, we need a special case for a form. That is what we are trying to 
avoid. For these reasons ATK/ATSPI created a landmark role first. 

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.

https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/html-aam/html-aam.html 


We do understand that non-browser applications may still use the older Form 
role mapping as would older browser versions. It is for these reasons that our 
definition of deprecation is that it has not gone a way but rather it is going 
to this new preferred mapping. 

Best,

Rich



Rich Schwerdtfeger




> On Aug 23, 2016, at 7:35 PM, James Teh  wrote:
> 
> If you believe that role="form" has no semantic value other than being a 
> landmark, then let's go ahead and map it to IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK. On the other 
> hand, the HTML form tag *does* have semantic value other than being a 
> landmark, so I'd argue it should be IA2_ROLE_FORM.
> 
> On 24/08/2016 5:22 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>> We are not asking that IA2_ROLE_FORM be deprecated altogether. Even with 
>> ARIA we have some attributes that re deprecated but that is meant so that 
>> there will be a replacement solution. An example is the drag and drop aria 
>> properties. For ARIA browser conformance testing to exit Candidate 
>> Recommendation we will be testing for IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK on form roles. 
>> 
>> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 18, 2016, at 9:56 PM, James Teh >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 11/08/2016 2:58 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
 1) adding IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and
>>> Yes.
>>> 
 2) deprecating IA2_ROLE_FORM?
>>> I'd argue that there is more semantic value in a "form" than just the fact 
>>> that it is a landmark. This probably doesn't apply to ARIA (at least for 
>>> now), since role="form" is defined as only a landmark. However, I'd argue 
>>> it does apply to the HTML form tag. So, I'm fine t not use IA2_ROLE_FORM 
>>> for ARIA role="form", but I'm dubious about deprecating it altogether, 
>>> including for the HTML form tag.
>>> Jamie
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 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


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-02-24 Thread Joseph Scheuhammer

On 2016-02-23 10:48 PM, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:

We will update the ARIA mapping spec


Can you be more specific?  One thing we will do is change the mapping 
for role region to:


"IAccessible2: IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and object attribute xml-roles:region".

For comparison, the current ATK/AT-SPI mapping is [1]:
"ROLE_LANDMARK and object attribute xml-roles:region".

The other possible update is to do that for *all* landmark roles. Using 
role="banner" as an example, the ATK/AT-SPI mapping is [2]:

"ROLE_LANDMARK and object attribute xml-roles:banner".

Hence, IA2 becomes:
"IAccessible2: IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK and object attribute xml-roles:banner".

Is that correct?  If so, it would partially fix bugzilla 28816:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28816

Thanks.

[1] http://w3c.github.io/aria/core-aam/core-aam.html#role-map-region
[2] http://w3c.github.io/aria/core-aam/core-aam.html#role-map-banner

--
joseph.

'Die Wahrheit ist Irgendwo da Draußen. Wieder.'
 - C. Carter -

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


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-02-23 Thread Rich Schwerdtfeger
Alright, please add the role to IA2. We will update the ARIA mapping spec and I 
will let some of the ATs know and We will need to let Google know as well. 

Rich

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 23, 2016, at 4:50 PM, James Teh  wrote:
> 
> That's a fair justification. We don't have a collections interface for IA2, 
> so if we did want to fetch all landmarks, we have to walk the entire tree 
> in-process, in which case checking the role is about the same as checking 
> xml-roles. Still, it does make sense and I'm happy to accept it given the 
> consensus.
> 
> I'll leave convincing the other Windows ATs up to someone else, though...
> 
> Jamie
> 
>> On 24/02/2016 4:34 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
>> Hey Jamie.
>> 
>> At least on my platform, getting all of the ROLE_LANDMARK objects (e.g.
>> for a list of landmarks dialog) via AtspiCollection is a lot more
>> performant than getting all the elements and then filtering out the
>> non-landmarks (99-100% of the set) via object attribute. The xml-roles
>> value remains useful for those cases where it matters what type of
>> landmark a particular element happens to be.
>> 
>> If you don't have a similar advantage on your platform, then I guess the
>> justification is the desire to keep our completely different platforms
>> as aligned as possible. And if you accept ROLE_LANDMARK, the next time
>> one of us has to compromise/give in, it will be my turn. 
>> 
>> --joanie
>> 
>>> On 02/22/2016 08:37 PM, James Teh wrote:
>>> Hi Rich,
>>> 
>>> I don't necessarily have an objection to introducing a new role, but I
>>> also don't quite follow the justification.
>>> 
>>> I follow that region became a subclass of landmark. However, I don't
>>> follow how this changes the "landmark" role; if anything, it changes the
>>> "region" role. And even then, the region role never had its own IA2 role
>>> in the first place. Furthermore, since we have to look at xml-roles
>>> anyway (as we always have, despite my objection years ago, but that's an
>>> entirely different story), I don't follow how the landmark role is useful.
>>> 
>>> I'm sure I'm missing something here. Can you enlighten me? :)
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jamie
>>> 
 On 20/02/2016 9:37 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
 Hi Alex,
 
 I am following up on this earlier discussion regarding needing an
 IA2_LANDMARK_ROLE
 
 http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2016-January/001993.html
 
 
 A fundamental change from ARIA 1.0 is we now have the role “region” as
 a descendant of a role of landmark:
 
 https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#region
 
 
 So, this is the revised set of landmarks:
 
 https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#landmark_roles
 
 The reason for this is developers have been using labelledy regions as
 landmarks and in HTML5 we now have a section landmark which will
 default to a role of “region” if it has a label on it.
 
 Given this change we would like this a new IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK that
 matches the landmark role we now have in ATK/ATSPI. The xml-roles
 attribute would take the value of the actual role as we know.
 
 Is there any objection to introducing this new role in IA2?
 
 We are trying to lock down ARIA 1.1 and this is one of the issues we
 need to address.
 
 Thanks,
 
 Rich
 
 
 
 ___
 Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
 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
> 
> -- 
> 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


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-02-23 Thread James Teh
That's a fair justification. We don't have a collections interface for 
IA2, so if we did want to fetch all landmarks, we have to walk the 
entire tree in-process, in which case checking the role is about the 
same as checking xml-roles. Still, it does make sense and I'm happy to 
accept it given the consensus.


I'll leave convincing the other Windows ATs up to someone else, though...

Jamie

On 24/02/2016 4:34 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:

Hey Jamie.

At least on my platform, getting all of the ROLE_LANDMARK objects (e.g.
for a list of landmarks dialog) via AtspiCollection is a lot more
performant than getting all the elements and then filtering out the
non-landmarks (99-100% of the set) via object attribute. The xml-roles
value remains useful for those cases where it matters what type of
landmark a particular element happens to be.

If you don't have a similar advantage on your platform, then I guess the
justification is the desire to keep our completely different platforms
as aligned as possible. And if you accept ROLE_LANDMARK, the next time
one of us has to compromise/give in, it will be my turn. 

--joanie

On 02/22/2016 08:37 PM, James Teh wrote:

Hi Rich,

I don't necessarily have an objection to introducing a new role, but I
also don't quite follow the justification.

I follow that region became a subclass of landmark. However, I don't
follow how this changes the "landmark" role; if anything, it changes the
"region" role. And even then, the region role never had its own IA2 role
in the first place. Furthermore, since we have to look at xml-roles
anyway (as we always have, despite my objection years ago, but that's an
entirely different story), I don't follow how the landmark role is useful.

I'm sure I'm missing something here. Can you enlighten me? :)

Thanks,
Jamie

On 20/02/2016 9:37 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:

Hi Alex,

I am following up on this earlier discussion regarding needing an
IA2_LANDMARK_ROLE

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2016-January/001993.html


A fundamental change from ARIA 1.0 is we now have the role “region” as
a descendant of a role of landmark:

https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#region


So, this is the revised set of landmarks:

https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#landmark_roles

The reason for this is developers have been using labelledy regions as
landmarks and in HTML5 we now have a section landmark which will
default to a role of “region” if it has a label on it.

Given this change we would like this a new IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK that
matches the landmark role we now have in ATK/ATSPI. The xml-roles
attribute would take the value of the actual role as we know.

Is there any objection to introducing this new role in IA2?

We are trying to lock down ARIA 1.1 and this is one of the issues we
need to address.

Thanks,

Rich



___
Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
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



--
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


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-02-23 Thread Joanmarie Diggs
Hi all.

On 02/23/2016 03:38 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:

> As a side note, it sounds a bit wired that the assistive technologies on
> Windows have to support a new role to make Orca faster. Please don't get
> me wrong, I'm exited to have fast Orca, but I feel there's something
> wrong with the approach.

FWIW, if the mapping under discussion is done for my platform but not
done for Windows, I have no problem with that. I don't want to force
something on Windows ATs any more than I want Windows-specific needs to
impact what and how things are exposed on my platform. :)

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


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-02-23 Thread Alexander Surkov
I'm totally up to keep APIs in sync but if no one is going to use the
feature, then there's no much benefit of implementing it. I defer to Jamie
on this.

As a side note, it sounds a bit wired that the assistive technologies on
Windows have to support a new role to make Orca faster. Please don't get me
wrong, I'm exited to have fast Orca, but I feel there's something wrong
with the approach.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Rich Schwerdtfeger 
wrote:

> Copy what Joanie stated. This would also help as we start moving toward a
> common api in ARIA 2.0.
>
> I would prefer that platforms diverge less. It sounds like it will not
> break anything for you.
>
> Rich
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 23, 2016, at 12:34 PM, Joanmarie Diggs  wrote:
>
> Hey Jamie.
>
> At least on my platform, getting all of the ROLE_LANDMARK objects (e.g.
> for a list of landmarks dialog) via AtspiCollection is a lot more
> performant than getting all the elements and then filtering out the
> non-landmarks (99-100% of the set) via object attribute. The xml-roles
> value remains useful for those cases where it matters what type of
> landmark a particular element happens to be.
>
> If you don't have a similar advantage on your platform, then I guess the
> justification is the desire to keep our completely different platforms
> as aligned as possible. And if you accept ROLE_LANDMARK, the next time
> one of us has to compromise/give in, it will be my turn. 
>
> --joanie
>
> On 02/22/2016 08:37 PM, James Teh wrote:
>
> Hi Rich,
>
> I don't necessarily have an objection to introducing a new role, but I
> also don't quite follow the justification.
>
> I follow that region became a subclass of landmark. However, I don't
> follow how this changes the "landmark" role; if anything, it changes the
> "region" role. And even then, the region role never had its own IA2 role
> in the first place. Furthermore, since we have to look at xml-roles
> anyway (as we always have, despite my objection years ago, but that's an
> entirely different story), I don't follow how the landmark role is useful.
>
> I'm sure I'm missing something here. Can you enlighten me? :)
>
> Thanks,
> Jamie
>
> On 20/02/2016 9:37 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> I am following up on this earlier discussion regarding needing an
> IA2_LANDMARK_ROLE
>
>
> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2016-January/001993.html
>
>
> A fundamental change from ARIA 1.0 is we now have the role “region” as
> a descendant of a role of landmark:
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#region
>
>
> So, this is the revised set of landmarks:
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#landmark_roles
>
> The reason for this is developers have been using labelledy regions as
> landmarks and in HTML5 we now have a section landmark which will
> default to a role of “region” if it has a label on it.
>
> Given this change we would like this a new IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK that
> matches the landmark role we now have in ATK/ATSPI. The xml-roles
> attribute would take the value of the actual role as we know.
>
> Is there any objection to introducing this new role in IA2?
>
> We are trying to lock down ARIA 1.1 and this is one of the issues we
> need to address.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> ___
> Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
> 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
>
>
>
>
___
Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-02-23 Thread Joanmarie Diggs
Hey Jamie.

At least on my platform, getting all of the ROLE_LANDMARK objects (e.g.
for a list of landmarks dialog) via AtspiCollection is a lot more
performant than getting all the elements and then filtering out the
non-landmarks (99-100% of the set) via object attribute. The xml-roles
value remains useful for those cases where it matters what type of
landmark a particular element happens to be.

If you don't have a similar advantage on your platform, then I guess the
justification is the desire to keep our completely different platforms
as aligned as possible. And if you accept ROLE_LANDMARK, the next time
one of us has to compromise/give in, it will be my turn. 

--joanie

On 02/22/2016 08:37 PM, James Teh wrote:
> Hi Rich,
> 
> I don't necessarily have an objection to introducing a new role, but I
> also don't quite follow the justification.
> 
> I follow that region became a subclass of landmark. However, I don't
> follow how this changes the "landmark" role; if anything, it changes the
> "region" role. And even then, the region role never had its own IA2 role
> in the first place. Furthermore, since we have to look at xml-roles
> anyway (as we always have, despite my objection years ago, but that's an
> entirely different story), I don't follow how the landmark role is useful.
> 
> I'm sure I'm missing something here. Can you enlighten me? :)
> 
> Thanks,
> Jamie
> 
> On 20/02/2016 9:37 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>> Hi Alex, 
>>
>> I am following up on this earlier discussion regarding needing an
>> IA2_LANDMARK_ROLE 
>>
>> http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2016-January/001993.html
>>
>>
>> A fundamental change from ARIA 1.0 is we now have the role “region” as
>> a descendant of a role of landmark:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#region
>>
>>
>> So, this is the revised set of landmarks:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#landmark_roles
>>
>> The reason for this is developers have been using labelledy regions as
>> landmarks and in HTML5 we now have a section landmark which will
>> default to a role of “region” if it has a label on it. 
>>
>> Given this change we would like this a new IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK that
>> matches the landmark role we now have in ATK/ATSPI. The xml-roles
>> attribute would take the value of the actual role as we know. 
>>
>> Is there any objection to introducing this new role in IA2?
>>
>> We are trying to lock down ARIA 1.1 and this is one of the issues we
>> need to address. 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
>> 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
> 

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


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] IA2 Role Landmark

2016-02-22 Thread James Teh

Hi Rich,

I don't necessarily have an objection to introducing a new role, but I 
also don't quite follow the justification.


I follow that region became a subclass of landmark. However, I don't 
follow how this changes the "landmark" role; if anything, it changes the 
"region" role. And even then, the region role never had its own IA2 role 
in the first place. Furthermore, since we have to look at xml-roles 
anyway (as we always have, despite my objection years ago, but that's an 
entirely different story), I don't follow how the landmark role is useful.


I'm sure I'm missing something here. Can you enlighten me? :)

Thanks,
Jamie

On 20/02/2016 9:37 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:

Hi Alex,

I am following up on this earlier discussion regarding needing an 
IA2_LANDMARK_ROLE


http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/accessibility-ia2/2016-January/001993.html


A fundamental change from ARIA 1.0 is we now have the role “region” as 
a descendant of a role of landmark:


https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#region


So, this is the revised set of landmarks:

https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#landmark_roles

The reason for this is developers have been using labelledy regions as 
landmarks and in HTML5 we now have a section landmark which will 
default to a role of “region” if it has a label on it.


Given this change we would like this a new IA2_ROLE_LANDMARK that 
matches the landmark role we now have in ATK/ATSPI. The xml-roles 
attribute would take the value of the actual role as we know.


Is there any objection to introducing this new role in IA2?

We are trying to lock down ARIA 1.1 and this is one of the issues we 
need to address.


Thanks,

Rich



___
Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
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