core-aam icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
core-aam copied to clipboard

Incomplete UIA mappings for aria-haspopup

Open sivakusayan opened this issue 2 years ago • 3 comments

While investigating browser support for https://github.com/w3c/core-aam/issues/190, I noticed that Chromium exposes haspopup as a property under AriaProperties in UIA. I don't think I see this called out in any of the UIA mappings in the spec.

If I'm not misunderstanding something, I think this can be fixed by just adding a AriaProperties.haspopup: <value> entry to each mapping.

sivakusayan avatar Sep 25 '23 01:09 sivakusayan

I agree with you. To go a step further, this lack of explicit call out in Core-AAM appears to be more widespread and is extended to pretty much all aria attributes, not just aria-haspopup*. Only a subset of aria attributes explicitly mention the AriaProperties mapping. It would be nice to have a uniform solution across all aria properties. Could it be a general call out in a subsection? I fear it would be too much clutter to repeat it in every single aria property. What do you think?

If you want to whip up a PR to update that, you'll certainly get my approval!

benbeaudry avatar Sep 28 '23 18:09 benbeaudry

Sorry for the late response - I've been trying to balance my time more between my full-time job and doing this on the side 🙂

At first, I was wondering if it would be strange for implementors if we called out the mandatory AriaProperties mapping in a separate section instead of in the mapping table itself. This is because I feel like the average reader might just jump to the mapping table immediately instead of taking the time to read the surrounding text. However, I notice that we have a General rules section already, so I guess we can just mention AriaProperties under that same heading.

sivakusayan avatar Oct 25 '23 04:10 sivakusayan

To be honest, I lean toward including a line in every attribute mapping table for the reasons @sivakusayan mentioned... philosophically I lean towards being a pendant as opposed to avoiding repetition in specs anyway -- because in general specs are read more than they are edited.

I'll make a new issue for this :)

spectranaut avatar Oct 31 '23 18:10 spectranaut