Accessibility review process

2020-11-11 Thread James Teh
(Also cross-posting to firefox-dev.) Hi all, Tl;dr: The Mozilla Accessibility Release Guidelines outline what is needed to make user interfaces accessible to people with disabilities. If you would like help from the accessibility team to determine whether your change is accessible, you can now

Re: Intent to Ship : HTML5 element (Nightly Only)

2020-06-24 Thread James Teh
While this doesn't need to block shipping in Nightly, I think we should consider advocating for the focus behaviour to be changed (and changing it in Firefox if we can get it into the spec) before we ship to release. The currently specified behaviour (and what both Firefox and Chrome implement)

Re: Proposal: remove support for running desktop Firefox in single-process mode (e10s disabled) anywhere but in tests

2020-06-10 Thread James Teh
In general, this obviously makes a lot of sense. However, because there is so much extra complication for accessibility when e10s is enabled, I find myself disabling e10s in local opt/debug builds to isolate problems to the core a11y engine (vs the a11y e10s stuff). The ability to do this was

Intent to prototype and ship: ARIA annotations

2020-02-27 Thread James Teh
In Firefox 75, we intend to enable ARIA annotations by default. Summary: This adds two new ARIA roles, a new aria-description attribute and expands aria-details. These changes are needed to support screen reader accessibility of comments, suggestions and other annotations in published documents

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)

2018-07-27 Thread James Teh
A final clarification: On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote: > Even if we (Mozilla) are delayed with implementation, we can > still champion this stuff. We can still nominate someone to > participate in the WG with subject matter expertise to help guide what > we think will be

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)

2018-07-26 Thread James Teh
TL;DR: Thanks for the further explanation/clarification. I (reluctantly) agree that these concerns make sense and have nothing else to add as far as the response goes. On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote: > > The only thing worth > > noting is that while you say there's no need

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)

2018-07-26 Thread James Teh
ile at the same time not resourcing accessibility sufficiently to make any reasonable progress at all. I'm not sure we can have it "both ways". Jamie On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 6:04 PM, James Teh wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)

2018-07-26 Thread James Teh
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:09 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > So some comments on the ARIA charter at > https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-aria-charter : > ... > I guess it seems OK to have only one implementation > if there's really only going to be one implementation on that > platform... but

Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)

2018-07-12 Thread James Teh
I (and others in the accessibility team) think we should support these charters. The ARIA working group is especially important in the future evolution of web accessibility. I have some potential concerns/questions regarding the personalisation semantics specifications from APA, but they're more