focusable->focused to resolve #1381

[cookiecrook]

---

Preview | Diff

[carmacleod]

+1
This is (almost) perfect. :)

Approving on the assumption that the broken link to an as-yet-unwritten definition of "focusable/focused" is removed - see suggestion, below.

Thanks @cookiecrook !

[aleventhal]

This is better than what there was but I don't think it goes far enough?

• IIRC we had a plan for the UA to ignore the entire aria-hidden=true subtree when something inside of it gets focused. The benefit of this is that the user may need context around the focused object. This is in one of the many issues filed on aria-hidden somewhere :)
• What about @sinabahram's concern regarding virtual buffers in JAWS and NVDA. They won't be informed of anything in the aria-hidden subtree, and therefore focus won't occur. Unless the user knows to try to turn off the virtual buffer and tab around, this new rule won't help.

[aleventhal]

Alright, after talking to @jnurthen, he convinced me that this only changes the requirement to add focused nodes to the tree. It doesn't say you must not add focusable nodes to the tree (e.g. if there's a way to mark them hidden on that platform).

I'm ok +1'ing it if it's understood that we will have slightly different behavior depending on the platform:

• On Mac, where there is no way to mark something hidden, we will add focused aria-hidden nodes to the tree, but keep other focusable nodes pruned out
• On other platforms (or at least on Windows where there's a virtual buffer), we will add all focusable nodes to the tree and mark them as hidden (e.g. STATE_SYTEM_INVISIBLE). This will allows JAWS and NVDA to show the user something is there even when they're in a virtual buffer.