Feedback: "Navigate to the first item in a menu" (Action Menu Button Example Using aria-activedescendant, Test 18, V22.03.17)

[cookiecrook]

Description of Behavior

These expectations for Home/End in a menu are invalid.

MUST Position of the focused item in the menu (1) is conveyed Failed
MUST Number of items in the menu (4) is conveyed Failed
SHOULD Role of the focused item, 'menu item', is conveyed Failed

1. "position of focused item" expectation filed separately as #1058
2. number of items in menu is never conveyed while switching between items in a menu.
3. menu item role is never repeated while switching between items in a menu, native or web. It would be redundant.

These invalid expectations are repeated 4 times in the test file.

• Home
• End
• Down arrow from the last item
• Up arrow from the first item

The 3rd invalid expectation also appears in Test 9 (Press "A").

Please remove these expectations. Thanks.

Test Setup

• Test File: test-18-navigate-to-first-item-in-menu-interaction-voiceover_macos.collected.html
• Report Page: Link
• AT: VoiceOver for macOS (Version 13.5)
• Browser: Safari (Version 16.6.0)

[css-meeting-bot]

The ARIA-AT Community Group just discussed Feedback: "Navigate to the first item in a menu" (Action Menu Button Example Using aria-activedescendant, Test 18, V22.03.17) · Issue #1060 · w3c/aria-at.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<jugglinmike> Subtopic: Feedback: "Navigate to the first item in a menu" (Action Menu Button Example Using aria-activedescendant, Test 18, V22.03.17) · Issue #1060 · w3c/aria-at
<jugglinmike> github: https://github.com//issues/1060
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: James had three points where he argued that certain assertions were invalid and should be removed
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: first, "position of focused item" -- expectation filed separately as #1058
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: second, "number of items in menu is never conveyed while switching between items in a menu."
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: third, "menu item role is never repeated while switching between items in a menu, native or web. It would be redundant."
<jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I find the suggestion that we should convey the position and the total as being out-of-sync with other screen readers and also with general screen reader users' expectations
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I thought we were all aligned on the idea that, given the semantics of MUST and SHOULD, that generally information about set sizes ought to be asserted with SHOULD
<jugglinmike> IsaDC: Yeah, if we were talking about "MAY", that would be a problem
<jugglinmike> James_Scholes: Okay, that makes sense
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: It doesn't seem like a screen reader should be repeating the role inside each one of these containers
<jugglinmike> James_Scholes: It's difficult because there are cases where screen readers DO do that, and you might find it off-putting if they didn't. Like in a tab list, for example
<jugglinmike> James_Scholes: Or what JAWS and NVDA would call a tab control
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: We're also starting to see things like "close" buttons in tab lists, so there might be other things in there
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: That's currently not valid, to be clear, but it might become valid with ARIA Actions
<jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I think it would be actively annoying if the AT announced that everything in a menu is a menu item, though
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: So do we want this to be a "MAY"?
<jugglinmike> James_Scholes: Well, I really think it SHOULDN'T do that kind of menu item announcement
<jugglinmike> James_Scholes: I think that if we didn't include it at all, then someone may be more likely to highlight it as extra verbosity if they encountered it
<jugglinmike> James_Scholes: but most testers would probably not consider if excessively verbose if we explicitly allowed it with a MAY assertion
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: This is just when navigating from one to another, but if you are READING the item, then it ought to tell you (since you might not remember or you might be distracted)
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: Any objections?
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: Hearing none, we'll stick with that.