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

Re: Split Issue 30? (Now: ISSUE-204)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:06:46 +0100
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-ID: <20120215120646822840.bfbcb4c6@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Silvia Pfeiffer, Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:13:51 +1100:
>> It seems contrived if AT would treat

 [ bad example deleted ]

> Did you mis-type? Where's the difference in these two (other than a
> surplus </object>)?

Sorry. Thanks! Yes indeed. I meant:

It seems contrived if AT would treat
  <object aria-describedby=x >
     <div id=x hidden><p>Foo</div>
  </object>
different from how
  <object aria-describedby=x >
     <div id=x><p>Foo</div>
  </object>
is treated.

> So, there are several ways to hide things -

Especially when we include 'hide for special media'.

> can we get clarification
> on what they currently imply for screenreaders?
> (1) @hidden (a boolean attribute)
> (2) style="visibitliy:hidden"
> (3) style="display:none"
> (4) @aria-hidden (not a boolean attribute)
> 
> For example: does a combination of (1) or (3) with
> @aria-hidden="false" make any difference to just (3)? Should it?

Good question. And one that I had myself. Within me I concluded that if 
you do

<img aria-describedby=desc>
<div id=desc hidden style='display:none'>

then there would be no description - provided that full semantics means 
that CSS is respected too.
-- 
Leif H Sill
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 11:07:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:44 GMT