Thread Subject: Re: Proposal 21(b) Focus
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: David Poehlman
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 6:20 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Proposal 21(b) Focus"
- Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Proposal 21(b) Focus"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
and to make things even more confusing, there is some indication that
the at might take full charge of what and how focus is donne.
On Nov 20, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Jim Tobias wrote:
Perhaps the word "content" is not the best choice. It sounds like
making a distinction with other elements, such as on-screen buttons and
other controls, and you're not, right?
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Allan [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:02 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Proposal 21(b) Focus
> Task: draft a proposal for a web provision on focus indicator
> This proposal should remain in Section 21. The content focus
> is provided by the software rendering the content, not by the
> content itself.
> Current wording 21(b)
> A well-defined on-screen indication of the current focus
> shall be provided that moves among interactive interface
> elements as the input focus changes.
> The focus shall be programmatically exposed so that assistive
> technology can track focus and focus changes.
> Proposal 1...Building on current wording with slight changes
> to make it relevant for the web 1. A well-defined on-screen
> indication of the current content focus shall be provided
> that moves among enabled content elements as the focus
> changes. The focus shall be programmatically exposed so that
> assistive technology can track focus and focus changes.
> this wording does not make it clear that the provision
> applies to software (i.e. web browsers and other user agents)
> that renders web content...
> Proposal 2.
> 2. For software that renders web-based content, a
> well-defined on-screen indication of the current content
> focus shall be provided that moves among enabled content
> elements as the focus changes. The focus shall be
> programmatically exposed so that assistive technology can
> track focus and focus changes.
> The definition of "web-based content" is open to discussion.
> This content is complex, and becoming more so. It is the
> software (user agent) that provides the focus in the rendered
> content and exposes it to assistive technology.
> The "parent" software (user agent) may, depending on the
> content, hand off the focus to other "child" software such as
> embedded players (Flash, media players, svg player, etc.),
> extensions (whatever might be developed), and native
> rendering engines (native mathml and svg rendering in
> Firefox, etc.), and other stuff yet to be developed. Each
> "child" must provide a content focus for "enabled content
> elements" as defined by the rendering engine according to the
> relevant standards for the content. Further, the content
> focus must be returned to the parent or passed to other
> "sibling" software, etc. It quickly becomes a series of
> nested boxes. The WACO calls this "Compound Documents".
> I think proposal 2 will cover the provision of a focus.
> I am not sure if it covers the coordination/management of the
> focus as it moves between "parent" and "child" rendering
> engines (native or external).
> Jim Allan