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

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

From: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:55:42 +0000
Message-Id: <164455E4-C572-46AC-9629-F15B5CC4DE85@gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Charles Belov <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com>

On 21 Jan 2011, at 18:17, Belov, Charles wrote:

> Daniel Weck [mailto:daniel.weck@gmail.com] wrote on Wednesday, January
> 19, 2011 8:09 AM
>>
>> Oops, I apologize for this editorial mistake: I meant
>> "display:none", not "visibility:hidden". The former
>> effectively 'deactivates' an element (so to speak) whereas
>> the latter is more similar to "voice- volume:0%". In other
>> words, "visibility:hidden" preserves the visual space that
>> the element would normally occupy if it was visible
>> (resulting in an empty or transparent area that still takes
>> part in the page layout), and conversely "voice-volume:0%"
>> results in an audio silence lasting as long as the duration
>> of non-silent TTS playback.
>> Regards, Daniel
>
> Actually, that's an argument in favor of speak:none.  It would be
> inconvenient to make listeners wait for something that is merely  
> hidden
> to sighted readers.

speak:none is not needed, authors can use display:none instead.  
Personally I think it makes a lot more sense to reuse existing CSS  
features, especially when the resulting authoring practice matches  
accessibility guidelines (e.g. a non-displayed visual element gets  
ignored by a speech processor, and any visible graphical element gets  
spoken-out). Is there really a compelling reason to keep speak:none ?  
I can't think of any. Regards, Daniel
Received on Saturday, 22 January 2011 07:56:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:36 GMT