W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2008

Re: [CSS21] Addition of 2 values to the visibility property

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:03:45 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0806261603w6b099482j5efdbaf6f49283bf@mail.gmail.com>
To: damianvila@gmail.com
Cc: Simetrical <simetrical@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Damian Vila <damianvila@gmail.com> wrote:

> Simetrical escribió:
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Damian Vila <damianvila@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> CSS2 > Visual effects > Visibility
>>> Rationale: Right now one of the most common methods to replace text with
>>> and
>>> image in an accessible way is to put the image as a background and indent
>>> the text, as proposed by Mark Rundel of Phark
>>> (http://phark.typepad.com/phark/2003/08/accessible_imag.html)
>>> The idea behind this is to only show the background of the box while
>>> hiding
>>> the foreground.
>>> The proposal is the addition of two new values to the visibility property
>>> in
>>> CSS: foreground and background.
>> There seem to be quite straightforward ways to do this already with
>> other, well-established proposals.  The content property in CSS3
>> should do a perfect job:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-css3-content-20030514/#content
>> "content: inhibit" or 'content: ""' should serve just as well as your
>> "visibility: background".  "visibility: foreground" appears equivalent
>> simply to "background: none", possible in any browser that supports a
>> CSS background in the first place.
>> These solutions seem more intuitive to me, as well (but then, the
>> visibility property always seemed a little odd to me, somehow).
> Well, I'm not really up-to-date with the work being done in CSS3, that's
> why I put the [CSS21] on the subject.
> It's true that the same (apparent) thing to 'visibility:foreground' can be
> made with 'background:none', but they are conceptually different. For
> example, it's not the same to load a page and have one element with
> 'backgound:none' than to load a page and have that same element with a
> background but the visibility set to 'foreground' (invisible background). In
> the first case you don't have a background at all, while on the second you
> just can't see the background (but effectively, it is there.) This could be
> used also to 'preload' backgrounds, for example.
> Damian
content: inhibit suffers from the exact same problems as the original
proposal, in that a user with CSS on but images off becomes nearly
completely unable to use the control.  Thus, using the content property to
control this is also decidely sub-optimal.

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 23:04:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:37 UTC