16760 2012-04-17 11:43:27 +0000 [AAPI]: html:b shouldn't have an accessible obect 2013-08-16 19:13:24 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML a11y APIs (editor: Steve Faulkner, Cynthia Shelly) unspecified PC All RESOLVED FIXED a11y P2 normal --- 1 surkov.alexander surkov.alexander hans.hillen jason mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking sideshowbarker+html-a11y-api oldest_to_newest 66763 0 surkov.alexander 2012-04-17 11:43:27 +0000 the spec says to expose html:b as "MSAA ROLE_SYSTEM_ TEXT" IAccessible2 ROLE_SYSTEM_ TEXT AT-SPI ROLE_TEXT Firefox doesn't expose an accessible for it. On IA2 and ATK text attribute "font-weight: 700" is used to expose semantics of html:b. No info is exposed on pure MSAA. 84897 1 jason 2013-03-24 02:09:02 +0000 Hi Alex, Has Firefox changed its approach here recently? I may be reading it wrong, but AViewer and AccProbe both indicating to me that html:b is exposed as ROLE_SYSTEM_TEXT. 84898 2 jason 2013-03-24 02:35:04 +0000 Sorry. Never mind. Was reading it wrong. In any case, and just to be clear, are you saying we should be indicating that html:b be "not mapped"? Thanks. 84994 3 surkov.alexander 2013-03-26 04:30:25 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > Sorry. Never mind. Was reading it wrong. > > In any case, and just to be clear, are you saying we should be indicating > that html:b be "not mapped"? Thanks. In case of IAccessible2 they should be mapped to text attributes I think. 84998 4 jason 2013-03-26 05:41:56 +0000 Thanks, Alex. How does this treatment compare with what you would propose for other similar inline text objects that APIs and assistive tech typically do little with, e.g., i, strong, em, cite, code, del, ins, small, etc.? Currently the proposed mappings for all of these is ROLE_SYSTEM_TEXT or equivalent, or AXGroup/group in the case of Mac. Is there a significant drawback to mapping such elements this way? Would mapping them this way benefit assistive tech in any way, e.g., better enable an optional different expression of these bits of content in screen readers? 84999 5 surkov.alexander 2013-03-26 06:18:24 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) > Thanks, Alex. > > How does this treatment compare with what you would propose for other > similar inline text objects that APIs and assistive tech typically do little > with, e.g., i, strong, em, cite, code, del, ins, small, etc.? b, strong - font-weight i, em - font-style:italic dfn, code, etc are exposed as text attributes corresponding to how they are styled. > Currently the proposed mappings for all of these is ROLE_SYSTEM_TEXT or > equivalent, or AXGroup/group in the case of Mac. > > Is there a significant drawback to mapping such elements this way? significant - probably not, it makes accessible tree and the work with text interface more complicated. > Would > mapping them this way benefit assistive tech in any way, e.g., better enable > an optional different expression of these bits of content in screen readers? mapping all of them into ROLE_SYSTEM_TEXT? 92190 6 surkov.alexander 2013-08-16 19:13:24 +0000 was fixed by bug 12703