Re: Moving forward on HTML Role Parity

Hi James.

I still think we want the triage input now.

Thanks!
--joanie

On 02/01/2018 04:33 PM, James Craig wrote:
> I’d consider the “generic” role and reserved “native-”prefixed role names to be precursors to the rest of the discussion surrounding role parity.
> 
> I’d recommend duping out your new generic issue to #525, since the discussion already started there.
> https://93to8ehqgm.proxynodejs.usequeue.com/w3c/aria/issues/525
> 
> Reserved abstract native-* prefix role… E.g. native-video for HTML <video>. It’d be an author error to use role=“native-video” since it can’t effectively be supported as an ARIA control.
> https://93to8ehqgm.proxynodejs.usequeue.com/w3c/aria/issues/529
> 
> There are a few more older issues needing the role-parity tag added.
> 
>> On Feb 1, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Joanmarie Diggs <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Léonie and James.
>>
>> The ARIA Working Group is ready to move forward on HTML role parity, and
>> we need stakeholder input. I'm hoping that Léonie can assist with
>> bringing our request for input to the attention of the Web Components
>> folks (and anyone else appropriate). James, if you could do the same
>> with the AOM folks, that would be great.
>>
>> =====
>> TL;DR
>> =====
>>
>> * "HTML Role Parity Meta Project" @ https://93to8ehqgm.proxynodejs.usequeue.com/w3c/aria/projects
>>
>> * First step: Complete triage of elements.
>>
>> * The Working Group considers itself sort of blocked until we have
>>  stakeholder input. "Sort of" because while we can proceed, we don't
>>  want to find out until it's "too late" that our assumptions about a
>>  given role/need were bogus. Let's get things right the first time.
>>
>> * Explicit feedback is requested on the issues; I don't want to assume
>>  silence equals consent.
>>
>> =======
>> Details
>> =======
>>
>> Given the size of the task, I've done an initial triage based on HTML
>> AAM and grouped elements into the following categories, for which I've
>> created associated issues in GitHub. They are arranged according to the
>> order feedback is requested -- and, in my opinion, from quickest/easiest
>> to most-involved/hardest.
>>
>> 1. Elements which have no ARIA role, but the HTML AAM mapping for all
>>   platforms is "not mapped."
>>
>>   Assumption: If no platform has a need for them to be mapped, we
>>   presumably do not need a role for them.
>>
>>   Input needed: Confirmation from stakeholder groups. Assuming we
>>   all agree, we can quickly close this issue.
>>
>>   Issue: https://93to8ehqgm.proxynodejs.usequeue.com/w3c/aria/issues/693
>>
>> 2. Elements already mapped in the HTML AAM to an ARIA role with an
>>   apparent one-to-one correspondence. In addition, the HTML AAM
>>   platform mapping for all platforms is "Use WAI-ARIA mapping."
>>
>>   Assumption: We already have parity and no new roles are needed for
>>   these elements.
>>
>>   Input needed: Confirmation from stakeholder groups. Assuming we
>>   all agree, we can quickly close this issue.
>>
>>   Issue: https://93to8ehqgm.proxynodejs.usequeue.com/w3c/aria/issues/694
>>
>> 3. Elements which lack a corresponding ARIA role in the HTML AAM, but
>>   are not mapped to roles on all platforms. And in cases where there
>>   is a mapping on a platform, it's a mapping to the platform's generic
>>   role.
>>
>>   Assumption: A role is likely needed, but a generic ARIA role should
>>   be sufficient.
>>
>>   Input needed: Confirmation from stakeholder groups. Assuming we
>>   all agree, we can quickly close this issue (new issues will be
>>   created for the generic ARIA role, and any specific roles necessary).
>>
>>   Issue: https://93to8ehqgm.proxynodejs.usequeue.com/w3c/aria/issues/698
>>
>> 4. Elements already mapped in the HTML AAM to an ARIA role. In addition,
>>   the HTML AAM platform mapping for all platforms is "Use WAI-ARIA
>>   mapping." HOWEVER, unlike the previous group there's not a one-to-one
>>   correspondence (e.g. both ol and ul map to list; both dfn and dt map
>>   to term).
>>
>>   Assumption: Some of these elements may need a dedicated role; others
>>   may not.
>>
>>   Input needed: Stakeholders to reach consensus on which of those
>>   elements need new roles. Those that don't can be added to the 694
>>   group (item 2) with parity already achieved; those that do can be
>>   added to the 697 group (item 5) for additional triage (generic vs.
>>   specific role).
>>
>>   Issue: https://93to8ehqgm.proxynodejs.usequeue.com/w3c/aria/issues/696
>>
>> 5. Elements which lack a corresponding ARIA role in the HTML AAM, but
>>   they are mapped on ALL platforms.
>>
>>   Assumption: Since all platforms map them, all platforms have a need
>>   for them. Thus they require a new role.
>>
>>   Input needed: Stakeholders to reach consensus on which of these
>>   require a dedicated/specific role versus a generic role. As indicated
>>   above, once we have sufficient input, new issues will be created for
>>   the generic ARIA role and any specific roles necessary.
>>
>>   Issue: https://93to8ehqgm.proxynodejs.usequeue.com/w3c/aria/issues/697
>>
>> Thank you in advance for your help getting the ARIA Working Group the
>> feedback it needs in order to proceed with HTML role parity.
>>
>> Please let us know if you have any questions.
>>
>> --joanie
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 1 February 2018 21:39:19 UTC