W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Comment on ARIA 1.0: Problematic conformance requirement for aria-hidden

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:57:26 +0200
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, PFWG Public Comments <public-pfwg-comments@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120427145726004987.70b060fd@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Steve Faulkner, Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:01:49 +0100:
> hi Ben, 
>>How does this impact what ARIA should say here, in your view?
> 
> I think that we should not be adding additional burden and complexity 
> for authors with aria-hidden.
> 
> aria-hidden confuses me.
> 
> I think that html5 hidden and CSS display:none should be functionally 
> and semantically the same and that both should imply aria-hidden=true

I think the intention of ARIA's MUST is that authors must/should do

element[aria-hidden=true]{display:none}

rather than

element{display:none}

Do you suggest that ARIA 1.0 should say "SHOULD" instead of "MUST" 
w.r.t. aria-hidden="true"?

Leif H Silli

> On 27 April 2012 09:29, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>>> Have not been following this discussion closely, but just wanted 
>>> to provide info about an implementation detail.
>>>
>>> In all supporting browsers CSS display:none is applied to elements 
>>> with the hidden attribute.
>> 
>> Thanks Steve.
>> 
>> They are following the HTML5 spec in that default styling detail.
>> 
>> How does this impact what ARIA should say here, in your view?
Received on Friday, 27 April 2012 13:02:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:16:16 GMT