W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-cjk@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Implying rb for accessibility (was RE: HTML5 and ruby

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:07:32 +0100
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, CJK discussion (public-i18n-cjk@w3.org) <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120121230732749360.b9018d22@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Koji Ishii, Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:17:24 -0500:
>> 1. do we need rb for simple ruby, or will span suffice? (take into 
>> account the use case
>> related to fallback)
> 
> I went to a seminar about dyslexia in Japan today and wanted to share 
> what I heard there.
  [ … snip … ]
> The researcher tried several methods to improve their readability and 
> found that the best method was to replace Kanji with Hiragana.
> 
> To do that, we need this stylesheet in user stylesheet (or as a UA feature):
> 
> rb { display: none; }
> rt { display: inline; }
> 
> We could have all textbooks to have rb if it's allowed.

A good point. It is, in fact, a variant of what I told Martin: That 
<rb> allows us to hide the base for accessibility technology - such a 
screen readers.

> And the world 
> becomes even friendlier to them if HTML5 implies rb tag when omitted.

Why? Instead of auto-generating <rb> in the DOM, why not make <rb> 
obligatory? 
-- 
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2012 22:08:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 21 January 2012 22:08:17 GMT