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

[Bug 18744] drop WAI-ARIA scope restriction in the text adopted in ISSUE-204

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2012 16:47:55 +0000
Message-Id: <E1TAOCJ-0007y3-DF@jessica.w3.org>
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18744

Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-i
                   |                            |ua.no

--- Comment #14 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2012-09-08 16:47:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)

At first, I was puzzled about the fact that Steve proposed a positive example
(see comment #3) which included <label>,  wheras Ted proposed a negative
example which included <label>. But then I saw that in Steve's case, it was the
<label> that was hidden, whereas in Ted's case, it was the <input> that was
hidden. 

   Having noted that diff, I'd like to suggest some improvements:

(1) Describe the principle. Summarized, we could say that Ted’s new text
recommends that, in case of indirect relations between hidden 
*labels/captions* and some visible content then the hidden label/caption
content should be exposed. Whereas when visible label/caption content 
reference hidden *content*, then the hidden content should not be exposed. 
Could a summary along those lines be added to the text? I think it would be
useful if readers were able to discover a pattern.

(2) Improve the positive examples by adding a <label> example: I think it would
be very useful to include Steve's positive <label for> example - along side
with Ted's negative <label for> example. If both examples are there, then it
prompts readers to analyze and discover the difference.

(3) I think the text 

      """Cases where it would be inappropriate include""" 

should be congruent with the text about when it *would be* approriate. For
example like this: 

      """Cases where it would be inappropriate for the structure
         of hidden="" elements to be exposed to users of AT with
         such an API include"""

(4) Regarding the negative examples, then they should be described more
congruently with the positive examples. For the positive examples, then the
hidden="" element is mentioned first: "a <map>" and "table headers". Please do
the same for negative examples. For example like this:

]]
 * a hidden="" element referenced by a hash name in a [visible]
   <a href> within the same document
 * a hidden="" form element referenced by a [visible] <label for>
]]

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 8 September 2012 16:47:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 8 September 2012 16:47:57 GMT