Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Tree Inclusion focus/activedescendant requirements need clarification… #950

Closed
wants to merge 46 commits into from

Conversation

carmacleod
Copy link
Contributor

@carmacleod carmacleod commented Apr 11, 2019

@carmacleod
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ping @cookiecrook - are you able to give this a quick review?

The only change is the 2nd bullet in 7.2 Including Elements in the Accessibility Tree - the one with 3 sub-bullets. I think it's clearer now (I grouped the "may fire an event" points together).

Here's the old content, for reference.

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
joanmarie and others added 21 commits October 17, 2019 10:43
According to multiple dictionaries, placeholder is a single word, and so should not be camelCased.
…81 (#972)

* aria-expanded: revise definition and change applicability

Resolves issue #681 by:
* Revising aria-expanded definition to state it aria-expanded belongs on interactive, focusable, controlling element.
* Rewording normative authors SHOULD to clarify when aria-controls should be used.
* Trimming unnecessary content from aria-expanded description related to grouping mechanisms and the benefits of collapsing content.
* Removing support from document, section, sectionhead, and window.
* Restoring support to following subclass roles that were effected by removals: gridcell, listbox (for issue #722), row, rowheader, tab, and treeitem.
* Adding support for checkbox.
* Adding aria-expanded as supported for role application

Thus, support is removed from the roles listed below that do not act as interactive, focusable, controlling mechanisms for expansion:

alert
alertdialog
article
banner
blockquote
caption
cell
complementary
contentinfo
definition
deletion
dialog
directory
feed
figure
form
grid
group
heading
img
insertion
label
landmark
legend
list
listitem
log
main
marquee
math
menu
menubar
navigation
note
paragraph
radiogroup
region
search
select
status
subscript
superscript
table
tabpanel
term
time
timer
toolbar
tooltip
tree
treegrid
joanmarie and others added 21 commits October 17, 2019 10:43
* Remove implicit value from heading role
* Adjust heading role verbiage to reflect aria-level authoring expectations
* Remove default value for aria-expanded from combobox role
* Update combobox role prose to better reflect removal of default aria-expanded value
…ference list”. (#964)

update 5 instances of “IDREF” to "ID reference" or "ID reference list”.
Did not update instances where “IDREF” was specifically linking to https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#IDREF
)

Addresses #860
* Reword slider role prose to reflect that aria-valuemin, valuemax are now supported, not required
* Remove aria-valuenow repair techniques from inline in the slider role
* Make fallback table more robust for aria-valuenow on slider role
* Add pointer to the fallback table from slider role
* Remove supported but not required attrs on slider from the author error handling table
…#944)

Addresses #858

* Update scrollbar role prose to better reflect properties moving from 'required' to 'supported'
* Scrollbar role: remove aria-valuenow repair techniques to the fallback table and point to said table
* Remove supported but not required attrs on scrollbar from the author error handling table
- add "controlled by"
- link to "owned" definition
- add back clause about required context role
@carmacleod
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cookiecrook @jnurthen @joanmarie @mcking65

I believe I have addressed all of your concerns.
If you have a moment to re-review this section, the direct link is:
Including Elements in the Accessibility Tree

- address comments on the call
@carmacleod
Copy link
Contributor Author

Apparently deleting a branch closes the related pull request... (of course it does)... so I created a new pull request for the new branch that I just created. Please review the cleaned-up branch in PR #1100 instead.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

9 participants