13512 2011-08-02 01:36:51 +0000 Need a DOM event for AT to catch when content is inserted 2012-10-16 19:42:20 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified PC Windows NT RESOLVED WORKSFORME a11y, a11ytf P2 normal --- 1 cyns eoconnor annevk bhawkeslewis cooper eoconnor faulkner.steve ian jackalmage laura.lee.carlson mike public-html-a11y public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking www-dom public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 51942 0 cyns 2011-08-02 01:36:51 +0000 DOM-based AT relies on DOM mutation events to catch changes via innerHTML, outerHTML, insertAdjacentHTML. This is slow and noisy. It would be useful to have an event for these particular changes, since they so often signal new UI, dialog opening, etc. Assign back to a11y-TF for more info. 51944 1 jackalmage 2011-08-02 03:03:27 +0000 This should be served by the new mutation events being discussed currently (I forget whether it's happening in htmlwg, whatwg, or webapps-wg). You'll be able to better filter for the kinds of mutation events that you want to hear about, like element insertion. 51954 2 bhawkeslewis 2011-08-02 06:39:33 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > This should be served by the new mutation events being discussed currently (I > forget whether it's happening in htmlwg, whatwg, or webapps-wg). The Webapps WG are chartered to produce a new DOM events specification: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/charter/ http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-3-Events/ They are actively discussing a replacement for mutation events, which they are proposing to deprecate: http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/MutationReplacement 53329 3 mike 2011-08-04 05:12:46 +0000 mass-move component to LC1 54846 4 ian 2011-08-12 23:46:34 +0000 ATs shouldn't be based on JS APIs. That makes no sense. 54879 5 bhawkeslewis 2011-08-13 09:02:07 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > ATs shouldn't be based on JS APIs. Some ATs are. Why shouldn't they be? http://webanywhere.cs.washington.edu/wa.php http://code.google.com/p/google-axsjax/ 54883 6 faulkner.steve 2011-08-13 10:13:24 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > ATs shouldn't be based on JS APIs. That makes no sense. isn't the AT that runs on your employers chrome OS? "ChromeVox is built as a Chrome extension. This means that unlike most accessibility software, it is built using only web technologies like HTML5, CSS and Javascript." http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2011/05/chromevox-built-in-spoken-feedback-for.html 54960 7 annevk 2011-08-14 09:49:12 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html>. Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: This is out of scope for HTML. innerHTML and friends are moving out of HTML into DOM Parsing and mutation events will become part of DOM. I suggest contributing to the relevant threads on www-dom@w3.org and public-webapps@w3.org. 62301 8 cyns 2012-01-05 16:45:03 +0000 Moving to WebApps for further discussion 62645 9 mike 2012-01-13 02:07:17 +0000 (In reply to comment #8) > Moving to WebApps for further discussion It appears that this was re-moved back to HTML WG based on discussion on the a11y TF telcon: http://www.w3.org/2012/01/12-html-a11y-minutes.html#item02 [[ Paul: WG isn't getting the notice when this is moved to another WG. People have complained when the editor has done this. ... Suggests creating a new bug to achieve this, not move an existing bug ... Same problem if component move, e.g. from LC to API component ]] 62682 10 ian 2012-01-13 20:33:14 +0000 Ok well I didn't move it to another WG, Cynthia did. I just closed the bug. So, reassigning to Cynthia. 76424 11 eoconnor 2012-10-16 18:07:44 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: No spec change. Rationale: This should be (and has been, AFAICT) addressed by a combination of Mutation Events and the DOM Parsing and Serialization specs, both of which are beeing worked in the WebApps WG. I encourage interested parties to follow the work in those areas. 76433 12 eoconnor 2012-10-16 19:42:20 +0000 s/Mutation Events/Mutation Observers/, thanks Anne.