Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Reverse relationships

2016-09-26 Thread Richard Schwerdtfeger
Hi Janina, 
 
I believe you are still the a11y director at the LF? Can you see any reason why IA2 could not be moved to github?
 
Rich
Rich Schwerdtfeger
 
 
- Original message -From: Alexander Surkov Sent by: accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.orgTo: James Teh Cc: IAccessible2 mailing list Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Reverse relationshipsDate: Fri, Sep 23, 2016 8:00 AM 
 A dummy copy/paste apparently makes a bad job. Thanks for the catch. Here is the change [1]. I guess we could ask them to move the repo to GitHub, not sure if there are any reasons to keep it on the LF server.

[1] http://git.linuxfoundation.org/?p=a11y/ia2.git;a=commitdiff;h=377a994e762820a544ccd13906e0528ea8ee832f
 
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 7:36 PM, James Teh  wrote:

Hi Alex, 
+/** This object is a details for a target object. */+const WCHAR *const IA2_RELATION_DETAILS = L"details";1. I think this is the wrong way around. "This" refers to the object we're pointing *from*. Target means the object we're pointing *at* (or *to*). Details means the object we're pointing *at* (the target) provides details for *this* object.2. I think it'd be good to give a broader description here. I realise many of the other relations don't, but details versus describedBy needs some clarification and I think we should be providing more detail where possible anyway. Perhaps this:"The target object provides the detailed, extended description for this object. It provides more detailed information than would normally be provided using the IA2_RELATION_DESCRIBED_BY relation. A common use for this relation is in digital publishing where an extended description needs to be conveyed in a book that requires structural markup or the embedding of other technology to provide illustrative content." 
+/** The target object is a details for this object. */+const WCHAR *const IA2_RELATION_DETAILS_FOR = L"detailsFor";Perhaps this:"This object provides the detailed, extended description for the target object. See IA2_RELATION_DETAILS." 
+/** This object is an error for a target object. */+const WCHAR *const IA2_RELATION_ERROR = L"error";Again, I think these are the wrong way around. I suggest this:"The target object is the error message for this object." 
+/** The target object is an error for this object. */+const WCHAR *const IA2_RELATION_ERROR_FOR = L"errorFor";I suggest:"This object is the error message for the target object."On another note, is there any chance the Linux Foundation would let us develop IA2 on GitHub? Having to do code review by pasting into emails really sucks. Probably not worth the effort and controversy, but ... ug. :)Thanks!JamieOn 15/09/2016 4:37 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
Hi, Jamie.Here's a changeset [1] for new relations (both direct and reverse for aria-details and aria-errormessage). Please review it at your earliest convenience.Please object if you are not convinced that we have a valid use case for each relation. I'll be happy to update the proposal.Thanks!Alex. 
--James TehExecutive Director, NV Access LimitedPh +61 7 3149 3306www.nvaccess.orgFacebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccessTwitter: @NVAccessSIP: ja...@nvaccess.org 
___Accessibility-ia2 mailing listAccessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.orghttps://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] Reverse relationships

2016-09-23 Thread Alexander Surkov
A dummy copy/paste apparently makes a bad job. Thanks for the catch. Here
is the change [1].

I guess we could ask them to move the repo to GitHub, not sure if there are
any reasons to keep it on the LF server.

[1]
http://git.linuxfoundation.org/?p=a11y/ia2.git;a=commitdiff;h=377a994e762820a544ccd13906e0528ea8ee832f

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 7:36 PM, James Teh  wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
>
> +/** This object is a details for a target object. */
>> +const WCHAR *const IA2_RELATION_DETAILS = L"details";
>>
>
> 1. I think this is the wrong way around. "This" refers to the object we're
> pointing *from*. Target means the object we're pointing *at* (or *to*).
> Details means the object we're pointing *at* (the target) provides details
> for *this* object.
>
> 2. I think it'd be good to give a broader description here. I realise many
> of the other relations don't, but details versus describedBy needs some
> clarification and I think we should be providing more detail where possible
> anyway. Perhaps this:
>
> "The target object provides the detailed, extended description for this
> object. It provides more detailed information than would normally be
> provided using the IA2_RELATION_DESCRIBED_BY relation. A common use for
> this relation is in digital publishing where an extended description needs
> to be conveyed in a book that requires structural markup or the embedding
> of other technology to provide illustrative content."
>
> +/** The target object is a details for this object. */
>> +const WCHAR *const IA2_RELATION_DETAILS_FOR = L"detailsFor";
>>
>
> Perhaps this:
>
> "This object provides the detailed, extended description for the target
> object. See IA2_RELATION_DETAILS."
>
> +/** This object is an error for a target object. */
>> +const WCHAR *const IA2_RELATION_ERROR = L"error";
>>
>
> Again, I think these are the wrong way around. I suggest this:
>
> "The target object is the error message for this object."
>
> +/** The target object is an error for this object. */
>> +const WCHAR *const IA2_RELATION_ERROR_FOR = L"errorFor";
>>
>
> I suggest:
>
> "This object is the error message for the target object."
>
> On another note, is there any chance the Linux Foundation would let us
> develop IA2 on GitHub? Having to do code review by pasting into emails
> really sucks. Probably not worth the effort and controversy, but ... ug. :)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jamie
>
> On 15/09/2016 4:37 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
>
>> Hi, Jamie.
>>
>> Here's a changeset [1] for new relations (both direct and reverse for
>> aria-details and aria-errormessage). Please review it at your earliest
>> convenience.
>>
>> Please object if you are not convinced that we have a valid use case for
>> each relation. I'll be happy to update the proposal.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Alex.
>>
>
> --
> 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] Reverse relationships

2016-09-19 Thread Richard Schwerdtfeger
I think IA2 should be moved to github as well.
Rich Schwerdtfeger
 
 
- Original message -From: James Teh Sent by: accessibility-ia2-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.orgTo: Alexander Surkov Cc: IAccessible2 mailing list Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Reverse relationshipsDate: Sun, Sep 18, 2016 6:36 PM 
Hi Alex,> +/** This object is a details for a target object. */> +const WCHAR *const IA2_RELATION_DETAILS = L"details";1. I think this is the wrong way around. "This" refers to the objectwe're pointing *from*. Target means the object we're pointing *at* (or*to*). Details means the object we're pointing *at* (the target)provides details for *this* object.2. I think it'd be good to give a broader description here. I realisemany of the other relations don't, but details versus describedBy needssome clarification and I think we should be providing more detail wherepossible anyway. Perhaps this:"The target object provides the detailed, extended description for thisobject. It provides more detailed information than would normally beprovided using the IA2_RELATION_DESCRIBED_BY relation. A common use forthis relation is in digital publishing where an extended descriptionneeds to be conveyed in a book that requires structural markup or theembedding of other technology to provide illustrative content."> +/** The target object is a details for this object. */> +const WCHAR *const IA2_RELATION_DETAILS_FOR = L"detailsFor";Perhaps this:"This object provides the detailed, extended description for the targetobject. See IA2_RELATION_DETAILS."> +/** This object is an error for a target object. */> +const WCHAR *const IA2_RELATION_ERROR = L"error";Again, I think these are the wrong way around. I suggest this:"The target object is the error message for this object."> +/** The target object is an error for this object. */> +const WCHAR *const IA2_RELATION_ERROR_FOR = L"errorFor";I suggest:"This object is the error message for the target object."On another note, is there any chance the Linux Foundation would let usdevelop IA2 on GitHub? Having to do code review by pasting into emailsreally sucks. Probably not worth the effort and controversy, but ... ug. :)Thanks!JamieOn 15/09/2016 4:37 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:> Hi, Jamie.>> Here's a changeset [1] for new relations (both direct and reverse for> aria-details and aria-errormessage). Please review it at your earliest> convenience.>> Please object if you are not convinced that we have a valid use case> for each relation. I'll be happy to update the proposal.>> Thanks!> Alex.--James TehExecutive Director, NV Access LimitedPh +61 7 3149 3306www.nvaccess.orgFacebook: http://www.facebook.com/NVAccessTwitter: @NVAccessSIP: ja...@nvaccess.org___Accessibility-ia2 mailing listAccessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.orghttps://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] Reverse relationships

2016-09-18 Thread James Teh

On 8/09/2016 9:22 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
Thank you, Jamie. I'm taking that screen readers may need to a context 
element, when error message pops up, as a use case for a reverse 
relation (if not, please correct me).
I think we'd more likely use it if the user is reviewing a form (rather 
than when the message appears). For example, perhaps error messages 
appear somewhere other than right next to the control. The user might 
want some way to navigate to the control. Honestly, we have no plans to 
implement this, but I think it's a reasonable use case.


Could you also comment my guess about aria-details? If a screen reader 
skips aria-details elements when navigating, then what mechanism we'd 
use for aria-details element detection.
I don't think we would skip them. (We don't skip descriptions now 
either.) If they're visible on screen, they should be visible to the 
screen reader user. However, Brett did express a desire to be able to 
access the element referenced by details. Brett, could you perhaps 
provide a use case?


I'll go ahead and review the proposed change as is regardless. I'd still 
like to see a use case for details reverse, though.


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

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


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Reverse relationships

2016-09-08 Thread Alexander Surkov
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger 
wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> Correct, aria-details requires no special role. However, the use case is
> for the digital publishing industry. They want to be able to take a piece
> of content and go to the alternative content that provides detailed
> information which could be alternative content as we discussed previously.
> The user may or may not wish to go back to the content the details is being
> provided for.
>

I'm not that confident, but if a screen reader performs the navigation,
then it can track the state, so that if the screen reader moved the user
somewhere, then it should be able to move it back without browser support.
Having said that, I'm not necessary argue against aria-details reverse
relation, but I would like to have a use case, where a screen reader would
be forced to traverse the whole document if it hadn't a reverse relation.


>
> The need for a reverse relationship for the error message is more critical.
>
> So, do we agree on a reverse relationship for error message and not
> details?
>
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>
>
> - Original message -
> From: Alexander Surkov 
> To: Brett Lewis 
> Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "ja...@nvaccess.org" <
> ja...@nvaccess.org>, "jdi...@igalia.com" , "
> accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org"  linux-foundation.org>
> Subject: Re: Reverse relationships
> Date: Wed, Sep 7, 2016 10:34 AM
>
> You're right. An element referred by aria-errormessage can be an alert of
> live region and thus should be announced by a screen reader, when it pops
> up. In this case, it seems the screen reader may need to find a context
> element, and if this is true, then the reverse relation is needed.
>
> aria-details are different, since they are more like labels and
> descriptions, and I guess thus they should be skipped when navigating the
> virtual buffer. That suggests that aria-details either needs a role (or
> xml-roles object attribute) or a reverse relation.
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Brett Lewis 
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is that documented somewhere?
>
> I read through the information on error and I don’t see anything about AT
> skipping error messages if encountering them while reading through the
> virtual buffer.
>
> Have I misunderstood something?
>
> Thanks,
>
> 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:* Alexander Surkov [mailto:surkov.alexan...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 07, 2016 8:02 AM
> *To:* Brett Lewis 
> *Cc:* Richard Schwerdtfeger ; ja...@nvaccess.org;
> jdi...@igalia.com; accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org
> *Subject:* Re: Reverse relationships
>
>
>
> Hi, Brett.
>
> Can you please elaborate your use case? My understanding is AT skips
> error/details, if the user encounters them, but announce them, when the
> user navigates to an element related with error/details. Why would AT need
> to find a related element by error/details?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Brett Lewis  wrote:
>
> Hi Rich,
>
> I think we do need the reverse relationships.
>
> Web authors can place the error/details anywhere on the page and there
> doesn’t seem to be any simple way for the user to determine what element
> the error message or details applies to without such a reverse relation.
>
> 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 12:57 PM
> *To:* ja...@nvaccess.org; surkov.alexan...@gmail.com; Brett Lewis <
> ble...@vfo-group.com>; jdi...@igalia.com
> *Cc:* accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org
> *Subject:* Reverse relationships
>
>
>
> We need agreement:
>
>
>
> Should the error message and details relationships have reverse mappings?
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
___
Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Reverse relationships

2016-09-08 Thread Alexander Surkov
Thank you, Jamie. I'm taking that screen readers may need to a context
element, when error message pops up, as a use case for a reverse relation
(if not, please correct me).

Could you also comment my guess about aria-details? If a screen reader
skips aria-details elements when navigating, then what mechanism we'd use
for aria-details element detection.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:12 PM, James Teh  wrote:

> Agreed. Happy to have a reverse relation for errormessage, since we seem
> to have a use case. We don't seem to have a compelling use case for a
> reverse relation for details, so let's leave it out for now.
>
> On 8/09/2016 5:25 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> Correct, aria-details requires no special role. However, the use case is
> for the digital publishing industry. They want to be able to take a piece
> of content and go to the alternative content that provides detailed
> information which could be alternative content as we discussed previously.
> The user may or may not wish to go back to the content the details is being
> provided for.
>
> The need for a reverse relationship for the error message is more critical.
>
> So, do we agree on a reverse relationship for error message and not
> details?
>
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>
>
> - Original message -
> From: Alexander Surkov 
> 
> To: Brett Lewis  
> Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "ja...@nvaccess.org"
>   ,
> "jdi...@igalia.com"  
> , "accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org"
>   linux-foundation.org> 
> Subject: Re: Reverse relationships
> Date: Wed, Sep 7, 2016 10:34 AM
>
> You're right. An element referred by aria-errormessage can be an alert of
> live region and thus should be announced by a screen reader, when it pops
> up. In this case, it seems the screen reader may need to find a context
> element, and if this is true, then the reverse relation is needed.
>
> aria-details are different, since they are more like labels and
> descriptions, and I guess thus they should be skipped when navigating the
> virtual buffer. That suggests that aria-details either needs a role (or
> xml-roles object attribute) or a reverse relation.
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Brett Lewis 
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Is that documented somewhere?
>
> I read through the information on error and I don’t see anything about AT
> skipping error messages if encountering them while reading through the
> virtual buffer.
>
> Have I misunderstood something?
>
> Thanks,
>
> 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:* Alexander Surkov [mailto:surkov.alexan...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 07, 2016 8:02 AM
> *To:* Brett Lewis 
> *Cc:* Richard Schwerdtfeger ; ja...@nvaccess.org;
> jdi...@igalia.com; accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org
> *Subject:* Re: Reverse relationships
>
>
>
> Hi, Brett.
>
> Can you please elaborate your use case? My understanding is AT skips
> error/details, if the user encounters them, but announce them, when the
> user navigates to an element related with error/details. Why would AT need
> to find a related element by error/details?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Brett Lewis  wrote:
>
> Hi Rich,
>
> I think we do need the reverse relationships.
>
> Web authors can place the error/details anywhere on the page and there
> doesn’t seem to be any simple way for the user to determine what element
> the error message or details applies to without such a reverse relation.
>
> 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 12:57 PM
> *To:* ja...@nvaccess.org; surkov.alexan...@gmail.com; Brett Lewis <
> ble...@vfo-group.com>; jdi...@igalia.com
> *Cc:* accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org
> *Subject:* Reverse relationships
>
>
>
> We need agreement:
>
>
>
> Should the error message and details relationships have reverse mappings?
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Reverse relationships

2016-09-07 Thread James Teh
Agreed. Happy to have a reverse relation for errormessage, since we seem 
to have a use case. We don't seem to have a compelling use case for a 
reverse relation for details, so let's leave it out for now.



On 8/09/2016 5:25 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:

Hi Alex,
Correct, aria-details requires no special role. However, the use case 
is for the digital publishing industry. They want to be able to take a 
piece of content and go to the alternative content that provides 
detailed information which could be alternative content as we 
discussed previously. The user may or may not wish to go back to the 
content the details is being provided for.
The need for a reverse relationship for the error message is more 
critical.
So, do we agree on a reverse relationship for error message and not 
details?



Rich Schwerdtfeger

- Original message -
From: Alexander Surkov 
To: Brett Lewis 
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "ja...@nvaccess.org"
, "jdi...@igalia.com" ,
"accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org"

Subject: Re: Reverse relationships
Date: Wed, Sep 7, 2016 10:34 AM
You're right. An element referred by aria-errormessage can be an
alert of live region and thus should be announced by a screen
reader, when it pops up. In this case, it seems the screen reader
may need to find a context element, and if this is true, then the
reverse relation is needed.
aria-details are different, since they are more like labels and
descriptions, and I guess thus they should be skipped when
navigating the virtual buffer. That suggests that aria-details
either needs a role (or xml-roles object attribute) or a reverse
relation.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Brett Lewis > wrote:

Hi,

Is that documented somewhere?

I read through the information on error and I don’t see
anything about AT skipping error messages if encountering them
while reading through the virtual buffer.

Have I misunderstood something?

Thanks,

Brett

*Brett Lewis*

*VFO*| Software Engineer

11800 31^st Court North, St. Petersburg, FL 33716

*T*727-299-6270 

ble...@vfo-group.com 

www.vfo-group.com 

*From:*Alexander Surkov [mailto:surkov.alexan...@gmail.com
]
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 07, 2016 8:02 AM
*To:* Brett Lewis >
*Cc:* Richard Schwerdtfeger >; ja...@nvaccess.org
; jdi...@igalia.com
;
accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org

*Subject:* Re: Reverse relationships

Hi, Brett.

Can you please elaborate your use case? My understanding is AT
skips error/details, if the user encounters them, but announce
them, when the user navigates to an element related with
error/details. Why would AT need to find a related element by
error/details?

Thanks.

Alex.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Brett Lewis
> wrote:

Hi Rich,

I think we do need the reverse relationships.

Web authors can place the error/details anywhere on the
page and there doesn’t seem to be any simple way for the
user to determine what element the error message or
details applies to without such a reverse relation.

Brett

*Brett Lewis*

*VFO*| Software Engineer

11800 31^st 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 12:57 PM
*To:* ja...@nvaccess.org ;
surkov.alexan...@gmail.com
; Brett Lewis
>;
jdi...@igalia.com 
*Cc:* accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org

*Subject:* Reverse relationships

We need agreement:

Should the error message and details 

Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Reverse relationships

2016-09-07 Thread Richard Schwerdtfeger
Hi Alex,
 
Correct, aria-details requires no special role. However, the use case is for the digital publishing industry. They want to be able to take a piece of content and go to the alternative content that provides detailed information which could be alternative content as we discussed previously. The user may or may not wish to go back to the content the details is being provided for.
 
The need for a reverse relationship for the error message is more critical.
 
So, do we agree on a reverse relationship for error message and not details?
 
Rich Schwerdtfeger
 
 
- Original message -From: Alexander Surkov To: Brett Lewis Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "ja...@nvaccess.org" , "jdi...@igalia.com" , "accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org" Subject: Re: Reverse relationshipsDate: Wed, Sep 7, 2016 10:34 AM 
You're right. An element referred by aria-errormessage can be an alert of live region and thus should be announced by a screen reader, when it pops up. In this case, it seems the screen reader may need to find a context element, and if this is true, then the reverse relation is needed. 
aria-details are different, since they are more like labels and descriptions, and I guess thus they should be skipped when navigating the virtual buffer. That suggests that aria-details either needs a role (or xml-roles object attribute) or a reverse relation.
 
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Brett Lewis  wrote:

Hi,
Is that documented somewhere?
I read through the information on error and I don’t see anything about AT skipping error messages if encountering them while reading through the virtual buffer.
Have I misunderstood something?
Thanks,
Brett
 
Brett Lewis
VFO | Software Engineer
11800 31st Court North, St. Petersburg, FL 33716
T 727-299-6270
blewis@vfo-group.com
www.vfo-group.com
 
 
From: Alexander Surkov [mailto:surkov.alexander@gmail.com]Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 8:02 AMTo: Brett Lewis Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger ; ja...@nvaccess.org; jdi...@igalia.com; Accessibility-ia2@lists.linux-foundation.orgSubject: Re: Reverse relationships
 
Hi, Brett.
Can you please elaborate your use case? My understanding is AT skips error/details, if the user encounters them, but announce them, when the user navigates to an element related with error/details. Why would AT need to find a related element by error/details?
Thanks.
Alex.
 
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Brett Lewis  wrote:
Hi Rich,
I think we do need the reverse relationships.
Web authors can place the error/details anywhere on the page and there doesn’t seem to be any simple way for the user to determine what element the error message or details applies to without such a reverse relation.
Brett
 
 
Brett Lewis
VFO | Software Engineer
11800 31st Court North, St. Petersburg, FL 33716
T 727-299-6270
blewis@vfo-group.com
www.vfo-group.com
 
 
From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:sch...@us.ibm.com]Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 12:57 PMTo: ja...@nvaccess.org; surkov.alexan...@gmail.com; Brett Lewis ; jdi...@igalia.comCc:  Accessibility-ia2@lists.linux-foundation.orgSubject: Reverse relationships
 
We need agreement:
 
Should the error message and details relationships have reverse mappings?
 
Rich
 
Rich Schwerdtfeger
 
 
 

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


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Reverse relationships

2016-09-07 Thread Brett Lewis
Hi,
Is that documented somewhere?
I read through the information on error and I don’t see anything about AT 
skipping error messages if encountering them while reading through the virtual 
buffer.
Have I misunderstood something?
Thanks,
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: Alexander Surkov [mailto:surkov.alexan...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 8:02 AM
To: Brett Lewis 
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger ; ja...@nvaccess.org; 
jdi...@igalia.com; accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Reverse relationships

Hi, Brett.
Can you please elaborate your use case? My understanding is AT skips 
error/details, if the user encounters them, but announce them, when the user 
navigates to an element related with error/details. Why would AT need to find a 
related element by error/details?
Thanks.
Alex.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Brett Lewis 
> wrote:
Hi Rich,
I think we do need the reverse relationships.
Web authors can place the error/details anywhere on the page and there doesn’t 
seem to be any simple way for the user to determine what element the error 
message or details applies to without such a reverse relation.
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 12:57 PM
To: ja...@nvaccess.org; 
surkov.alexan...@gmail.com; Brett Lewis 
>; 
jdi...@igalia.com
Cc: 
accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Reverse relationships

We need agreement:

Should the error message and details relationships have reverse mappings?

Rich



Rich Schwerdtfeger


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


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Reverse relationships

2016-09-07 Thread Alexander Surkov
You're right. An element referred by aria-errormessage can be an alert of
live region and thus should be announced by a screen reader, when it pops
up. In this case, it seems the screen reader may need to find a context
element, and if this is true, then the reverse relation is needed.

aria-details are different, since they are more like labels and
descriptions, and I guess thus they should be skipped when navigating the
virtual buffer. That suggests that aria-details either needs a role (or
xml-roles object attribute) or a reverse relation.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Brett Lewis  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Is that documented somewhere?
>
> I read through the information on error and I don’t see anything about AT
> skipping error messages if encountering them while reading through the
> virtual buffer.
>
> Have I misunderstood something?
>
> Thanks,
>
> 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:* Alexander Surkov [mailto:surkov.alexan...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 07, 2016 8:02 AM
> *To:* Brett Lewis 
> *Cc:* Richard Schwerdtfeger ; ja...@nvaccess.org;
> jdi...@igalia.com; accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org
> *Subject:* Re: Reverse relationships
>
>
>
> Hi, Brett.
>
> Can you please elaborate your use case? My understanding is AT skips
> error/details, if the user encounters them, but announce them, when the
> user navigates to an element related with error/details. Why would AT need
> to find a related element by error/details?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Brett Lewis  wrote:
>
> Hi Rich,
>
> I think we do need the reverse relationships.
>
> Web authors can place the error/details anywhere on the page and there
> doesn’t seem to be any simple way for the user to determine what element
> the error message or details applies to without such a reverse relation.
>
> 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 12:57 PM
> *To:* ja...@nvaccess.org; surkov.alexan...@gmail.com; Brett Lewis <
> ble...@vfo-group.com>; jdi...@igalia.com
> *Cc:* accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org
> *Subject:* Reverse relationships
>
>
>
> We need agreement:
>
>
>
> Should the error message and details relationships have reverse mappings?
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>
>
>
>
___
Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Reverse relationships

2016-09-07 Thread Alexander Surkov
I'd say we need have the reverse relations in both of specs (IA2 and UAIG)
and implemented in the browsers, iff there's a valid use case for them, and
intentions from screen readers to implement them.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <sch...@us.ibm.com>
wrote:

> To be clear, we would not document them in the mapping specification if
> they are not implemented.
>
> When I say add them later I am referring to the mapping spec. and
> browsers. However, doing that has ramifications for AT vendors.
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>
>
> - Original message -
> From: James Teh <ja...@nvaccess.org>
> To: Dominic Mazzoni <dmazz...@google.com>, Richard
> Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc: accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Subject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Reverse relationships
> Date: Wed, Sep 7, 2016 12:26 AM
>
>
> That's fair. The only problem is that if they're documented in the mapping
> spec, browsers are technically non-compliant if they don't implement.
>
> On 7/09/2016 2:58 PM, Dominic Mazzoni wrote:
>
> Is there any reason we shouldn't *define* the reverse relationships now?
> Browsers can choose not to implement them now for performance reasons, and
> AT can choose to ignore them.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:16 PM Richard Schwerdtfeger <sch...@us.ibm.com>
> wrote:
>
> Jamie,
>
>
> Well you can add reverse relationships later if it becomes an issue. The
> only problem with adding it later is you will also then need to test if
> that reverse relation ship exists and what to do with older browsers that
> won't have the relationship.
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>
>
> - Original message -
> From: James Teh <ja...@nvaccess.org>
> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, surkov.alexan...@gmail.com,
> ble...@freedomscientific.com, jdi...@igalia.com
> Cc: accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Subject: Re: Reverse relationships
> Date: Tue, Sep 6, 2016 7:34 PM
>
>
> As I noted previously:
>
>
>
>
>
> 5. Reverse relations may well be useful in the future. However, if they're
> a potential perf problem, I agree it makes sense to wait until we have a
> use case, so long as implementers accept that this use case may one day
> arise.
>
>
>
>
>
> Right now, we have no plans to implement a "jump to field for error
> message" command or similar. Perhaps we will one day, but it seems flawed
> to sacrifice performance for something no one is using yet.
>
> Jamie
>
> On 7/09/2016 5:56 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>
> We need agreement:
>
> Should the error message and details relationships have reverse mappings?
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> 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] Reverse relationships

2016-09-07 Thread Alexander Surkov
Hi, Brett.

Can you please elaborate your use case? My understanding is AT skips
error/details, if the user encounters them, but announce them, when the
user navigates to an element related with error/details. Why would AT need
to find a related element by error/details?

Thanks.
Alex.


On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Brett Lewis  wrote:

> Hi Rich,
>
> I think we do need the reverse relationships.
>
> Web authors can place the error/details anywhere on the page and there
> doesn’t seem to be any simple way for the user to determine what element
> the error message or details applies to without such a reverse relation.
>
> 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 12:57 PM
> *To:* ja...@nvaccess.org; surkov.alexan...@gmail.com; Brett Lewis <
> ble...@vfo-group.com>; jdi...@igalia.com
> *Cc:* accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org
> *Subject:* Reverse relationships
>
>
>
> We need agreement:
>
>
>
> Should the error message and details relationships have reverse mappings?
>
>
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>
>
___
Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Reverse relationships

2016-09-07 Thread Richard Schwerdtfeger
To be clear, we would not document them in the mapping specification if they are not implemented.
 
When I say add them later I am referring to the mapping spec. and browsers. However, doing that has ramifications for AT vendors.
Rich Schwerdtfeger
 
 
- Original message -From: James Teh To: Dominic Mazzoni , Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUSCc: accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.orgSubject: Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Reverse relationshipsDate: Wed, Sep 7, 2016 12:26 AM 
That's fair. The only problem is that if they're documented in the mapping spec, browsers are technically non-compliant if they don't implement. 

On 7/09/2016 2:58 PM, Dominic Mazzoni wrote:
Is there any reason we shouldn't *define* the reverse relationships now? Browsers can choose not to implement them now for performance reasons, and AT can choose to ignore them.
  

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:16 PM Richard Schwerdtfeger  wrote:
Jamie,
 
 
Well you can add reverse relationships later if it becomes an issue. The only problem with adding it later is you will also then need to test if that reverse relation ship exists and what to do with older browsers that won't have the relationship.
 
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: Reverse relationshipsDate: Tue, Sep 6, 2016 7:34 PM 
As I noted previously:
 
 
5. Reverse relations may well be useful in the future. However, if they're a potential perf problem, I agree it makes sense to wait until we have a use case, so long as implementers accept that this use case may one day arise. 

 Right now, we have no plans to implement a "jump to field for error message" command or similar. Perhaps we will one day, but it seems flawed to sacrifice performance for something no one is using yet.Jamie 
On 7/09/2016 5:56 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
We need agreement:
 
Should the error message and details relationships have reverse mappings?
 
Rich
 
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 listAccessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.orghttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2 

--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] Reverse relationships

2016-09-06 Thread James Teh
That's fair. The only problem is that if they're documented in the 
mapping spec, browsers are technically non-compliant if they don't 
implement.



On 7/09/2016 2:58 PM, Dominic Mazzoni wrote:
Is there any reason we shouldn't *define* the reverse relationships 
now? Browsers can choose not to implement them now for performance 
reasons, and AT can choose to ignore them.



On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:16 PM Richard Schwerdtfeger 
> wrote:


Jamie,
Well you can add reverse relationships later if it becomes an
issue. The only problem with adding it later is you will also then
need to test if that reverse relation ship exists and what to do
with older browsers that won't have the relationship.
Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger

- Original message -
From: James Teh >
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
surkov.alexan...@gmail.com
,
ble...@freedomscientific.com
, jdi...@igalia.com

Cc: accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org

Subject: Re: Reverse relationships
Date: Tue, Sep 6, 2016 7:34 PM

As I noted previously:


5. Reverse relations may well be useful in the future.
However, if they're a potential perf problem, I agree it
makes sense to wait until we have a use case, so long as
implementers accept that this use case may one day arise.



Right now, we have no plans to implement a "jump to field for
error message" command or similar. Perhaps we will one day,
but it seems flawed to sacrifice performance for something no
one is using yet.

Jamie
On 7/09/2016 5:56 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:

We need agreement:
Should the error message and details relationships have
reverse mappings?
Rich


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



--
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] Reverse relationships

2016-09-06 Thread Dominic Mazzoni via Accessibility-ia2
Is there any reason we shouldn't *define* the reverse relationships now?
Browsers can choose not to implement them now for performance reasons, and
AT can choose to ignore them.


On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:16 PM Richard Schwerdtfeger 
wrote:

> Jamie,
>
>
> Well you can add reverse relationships later if it becomes an issue. The
> only problem with adding it later is you will also then need to test if
> that reverse relation ship exists and what to do with older browsers that
> won't have the relationship.
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>
>
> - Original message -
> From: James Teh 
> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, surkov.alexan...@gmail.com,
> ble...@freedomscientific.com, jdi...@igalia.com
> Cc: accessibility-...@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Subject: Re: Reverse relationships
> Date: Tue, Sep 6, 2016 7:34 PM
>
>
> As I noted previously:
>
>
>
>
>
> 5. Reverse relations may well be useful in the future. However, if they're
> a potential perf problem, I agree it makes sense to wait until we have a
> use case, so long as implementers accept that this use case may one day
> arise.
>
>
>
>
>
> Right now, we have no plans to implement a "jump to field for error
> message" command or similar. Perhaps we will one day, but it seems flawed
> to sacrifice performance for something no one is using yet.
>
> Jamie
>
> On 7/09/2016 5:56 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>
> We need agreement:
>
> Should the error message and details relationships have reverse mappings?
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> 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
>
___
Accessibility-ia2 mailing list
Accessibility-ia2@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility-ia2


Re: [Accessibility-ia2] Reverse relationships

2016-09-06 Thread Richard Schwerdtfeger
Jamie,
 
 
Well you can add reverse relationships later if it becomes an issue. The only problem with adding it later is you will also then need to test if that reverse relation ship exists and what to do with older browsers that won't have the relationship.
 
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: Reverse relationshipsDate: Tue, Sep 6, 2016 7:34 PM 
As I noted previously:
 
 
5. Reverse relations may well be useful in the future. However, if they're a potential perf problem, I agree it makes sense to wait until we have a use case, so long as implementers accept that this use case may one day arise. 

 Right now, we have no plans to implement a "jump to field for error message" command or similar. Perhaps we will one day, but it seems flawed to sacrifice performance for something no one is using yet.Jamie 
On 7/09/2016 5:56 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
We need agreement:
 
Should the error message and details relationships have reverse mappings?
 
Rich
 
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