W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Promise broken on ISSUE 204?

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 15:17:01 -0700
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <F0465314-72BD-4D39-B0FC-51B964A9F6D3@apple.com>
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>

On May 7, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:

> 
> I have my own problems with this text, but can we unpick Maciej's
> objection a little?
> 

[...]


> As far as I know, nobody has put forward a single example where they
> are happy to declare that placing accessibility-related content in
> @hidden would be better for users and authors than alternative
> techniques. So it seems bizarre that we are talking about preventing
> @hidden meeting its original use cases in service of such usage.

To be clear, the concern I am conveying here is about what browsers may do when authors point to @hidden content with aria-describedby. I believe a requirement that content is to be presented, but only in plaintext flattened form, never with semantics, is needlessly limiting. I personally have no personal opinion on whether this construct should be conforming for authors. I don't believe your arguments are responsive to the concern about mandatory flattening.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 22:17:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 May 2012 22:17:29 GMT