W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2011

RE: [css3-speech] ISSUE-153 speak: none; usage incompatible with other values of speak

From: Belov, Charles <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:02:13 -0800
Message-ID: <E17F75B6E86AE842A57B4534F82D0376CD2443@MTAMAIL.muni.sfgov.org>
To: "Daniel Weck" <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Weck [mailto:daniel.weck@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 4:15 AM
> To: Mark Kenny; www-style@w3.org; Belov, Charles
> Subject: Re: [css3-speech] ISSUE-153 speak: none; usage 
> incompatible with other values of speak
> 
> The latest editor's draft now includes a new 'speakability' 
> property.  
> The 'none' value of the 'speak' property has been removed. 
> Note how "speakability:none" is analogous to "display:none" 
> (the prose is near- identical).
> 
> Please review [1].
> 
> Regards, Daniel
> 
> [1]
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-speech/#speaking-props
> 

With the caveat that I don't feel knowledgeable about "auto," the
information seems complete and good for me.  

As for the term, I personally prefer "speakability" as it is similar to
"visibility" and thus instantly understandable.  It would not be the
only CSS property to annoy spell checkers ("nav" annoys mine).   But I
don't feel strongly enough about it to object to "speaking."

I thought about "audibility," but that would imply that silent content
still took up time, which is not the case here.

Hope this helps,
Charles Belov
SFMTA Webmaster
Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 20:06:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:37 GMT