FLUID-3157: add complex accessiblity features to Builder

Description

When a check box is checked, there should be a way to know aurally that dependencies are highlighted

For checkall and uncheckall - give more meaningful title to reset button;
upon reset-select, need aural confirmation ("no modules selected")

Attachments

• FLUID-3157_object_not_array.txt

Comments

• Justin Obara commented 2009-09-21T09:55:41.000-0400

  Bug Parade Infusion 1.1.2

• Laurel Williams commented 2009-09-24T13:50:39.000-0400

  Added a live region to manage the checkbox announcing.

• Colin Clark commented 2009-09-30T14:29:54.000-0400

  This one is great, but not quite ready for release. Let's move the ARIA roles and properties out of the HTML file and put into JavaScript.

  Example of Aria using js.
  http://www.slideshare.net/ajaxexperience2009/colin-clark-accessible-u-is-with-j-query-and-infusion1

• Colin Clark commented 2009-09-30T14:32:23.000-0400

  We should also move the ARIA-related logic out of builder.js into CustomBuilder.js, and ensure that it's integrated fully into the component, not outside it.

• Laurel Williams commented 2009-09-30T14:34:35.000-0400

  Also remove spaces in title = "Check all Modules" (around equals).

• Laurel Williams commented 2009-09-30T14:34:58.000-0400

  Reopening to address issues which came up in review

• Laurel Williams commented 2009-09-30T15:25:51.000-0400

  I wonder if it might make sense for your getNameString() code to change slightly
  [13:52:41 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> I notice that you return "" if there are no modules selected
  [13:52:53 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> but then in another method you check if it's "" and then reset it to "none"
  [13:53:15 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> Why not actually start getNameString() by explicitly checking for no selections and returning the string "none"
  [13:53:35 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> And then you just need to blast the string directly into the DOM
  [13:53:59 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> Also, this line here: jQuery("#modulesSelected").html("<p>Modules Selected: " + modulesSelected + "</p>");
  [13:54:09 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> line 90 of builder.js
  [13:54:24 EDT(-0400)] <laurel> yup
  [13:54:30 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> I wonder if there's a way to do this without outputting the HTML directly
  [13:54:57 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> laurel: the last issue about outputting HTML directly is a post-1.1.2 fix
  [13:55:13 EDT(-0400)] <laurel> ok
  [13:55:18 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> but i wanted to mention it while I'm looking at the code
  [13:55:37 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> you should feel free to just grab this IRC transcript and dump it into the comments of the relevant JIRA issues (that's what I usually do)
  [13:55:42 EDT(-0400)] <laurel> still getting the hang of a new programming paradigm
  [13:56:11 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> Oh!
  [13:56:19 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> And I just found a funny little bug
  [13:56:24 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> Sorry to lay all these on you at once
  [13:56:39 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> you have a function in CustomBuilder.js that is very well-named
  [13:56:41 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> createModuleNamesArray
  [13:56:55 EDT(-0400)] <laurel> one by one wouldn't really be useful
  [13:57:00 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> And in it, there's a really funny statement
  [13:57:03 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> var array = {};
  [13:57:44 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> So maybe it should be an object, maybe an array
  [13:58:07 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> I guess it depends on what moduleValue actually is.
  [13:58:39 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> And I think that's it for FLUID-3157
  [13:58:48 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> I'll make a quick note on the JIRA that it needs a bit more baking
  [14:01:23 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> laurel: One more issue... let's move the ARIA-related code from builder.js into CustomBuild.js
  [14:01:32 EDT(-0400)] <colinclark> It should be integrated into the component, not living outside of it

• Jacob Farber commented 2009-10-02T14:20:06.000-0400

  I'm in the middle of reviewing this, but I think there might be a problem with rev. 8182 for the JS file. Why use an array as a hash when you were using an object (which seems more appropriate)?

• Jacob Farber commented 2009-10-02T16:55:00.000-0400

  I reviewed up to revision 8195. It seems good, with the assumption that more work is being done re: revision 8182 and ensuring the loops over objects are done properly.

• Laurel Williams commented 2009-10-02T16:59:31.000-0400

  I created a patch for this rather than checking it in. If we have time for someone to review this properly then it can be checked in if Jess and Justin say yes.

• Jacob Farber commented 2009-10-05T16:33:27.000-0400

  I reviewed this patch and it looks fine

• Justin Obara commented 2009-10-05T17:21:21.000-0400

  as per comment above