Closed Bug 1105273 Opened 5 years ago Closed 5 years ago

Accessibility mapping for aria-modal

Categories

(Core :: Disability Access APIs, defect)

x86
macOS
defect
Not set

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
mozilla37

People

(Reporter: surkov, Assigned: surkov)

References

(Blocks 1 open bug)

Details

(Keywords: access)

Attachments

(1 file)

Attached patch patchSplinter Review
No description provided.
Attachment #8529073 - Flags: review?(dbolter)
Comment on attachment 8529073 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

Review of attachment 8529073 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

perfecto!
Attachment #8529073 - Flags: review?(dbolter) → review+
link to the spec please.
(In reply to Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) from comment #2)
> link to the spec please.

afaik there's no spec yet, there's discussion [1] and agreement on the feature, since every platform is looking for proper accessibility mapping

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2014Nov/0043.html
(In reply to alexander :surkov from comment #3)
> (In reply to Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) from comment #2)
> > link to the spec please.
> 
> afaik there's no spec yet, there's discussion [1] and agreement on the
> feature, since every platform is looking for proper accessibility mapping

agreement between who exactly?  I think adding new APIs should get a fairly careful discussion.

That said I guess I don't really have an objection to this implementation other than not having considered it enough to really over come defaulting to no.
(In reply to Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) from comment #4)
> (In reply to alexander :surkov from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) from comment #2)
> > > link to the spec please.
> > 
> > afaik there's no spec yet, there's discussion [1] and agreement on the
> > feature, since every platform is looking for proper accessibility mapping
> 
> agreement between who exactly?

between PFWG members

>  I think adding new APIs should get a fairly
> careful discussion.

It's not really new API, it's new markup that was discussed well I guess, this bug is about implementing the new ARIA feature and it seems IA2_STATE_MODAL is sort of obvious mapping for it, and thus I followed it (David agreed on it btw). If somebody will have concerns about chosen mapping then sure we can revisit it.
> >  I think adding new APIs should get a fairly
> > careful discussion.
> 
> It's not really new API, it's new markup that was discussed well I guess,

those are more or less the same thing

> this bug is about implementing the new ARIA feature and it seems
> IA2_STATE_MODAL is sort of obvious mapping for it, and thus I followed it
> (David agreed on it btw). If somebody will have concerns about chosen
> mapping then sure we can revisit it.

Well, once something is done that will be either much harder or impossible.
(In reply to Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) from comment #6)
> > >  I think adding new APIs should get a fairly
> > > careful discussion.
> > 
> > It's not really new API, it's new markup that was discussed well I guess,
> 
> those are more or less the same thing

Part of the ARIA development has been an implementation in (usually) Firefox before the spec was finalized, as a proof that the theoretical concept actually worked. This was how originally, stuff was being pushed through WHATWG in 2006/2007, and everything else were then fine-tuning and bug fixing that came out of exposure to real-world scenarios and some practical adjustments that lead to ARIA 1.0.

With new features, I'd much rather be at the forefront of things with Firefox again rather than somebody else. I think it's OK to implement this and adjust later if needed. Better us than somebody else. We are leaders in accessibility, not followers.

> > this bug is about implementing the new ARIA feature and it seems
> > IA2_STATE_MODAL is sort of obvious mapping for it, and thus I followed it
> > (David agreed on it btw). If somebody will have concerns about chosen
> > mapping then sure we can revisit it.
> Well, once something is done that will be either much harder or impossible.

History shows that this is very well possible, if clearly documented.

Giving this my blessing.
I'd much rather have aria-modal used for the modal dialog use case than aria-hidden. It is quite possible the aria-hidden attribute only got its silly super powers (pruning) when people wanted to use to to hide the trees outside the dialog. Maybe one day browsers will implement html:dialog and we can all go home :)
I wish bugzilla provided +1 feature, I would use it for Marco's comment.
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0b5312cb24e4
Assignee: nobody → surkov.alexander
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 5 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla37
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.