- From: Brad Kemper via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2021 18:29:31 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I'm not sure I agree with that being the best thing to do for case 2, though I guess it fits with the current text. It seems a little weird and unexpected to me. I think instead of "their semantic role as a container is not affected", it should be "their semantic role in relation to other elements is not affected". Thus, a hidden button would not have a semantic role of its own, even with a visible child. But a `TD` would still reference a hidden `TH` in a hidden `THEAD`, and behave as though its parent table parts are not hidden, for the sake of giving meaning to the `TD` (almost like how table fix up occurs when a parent table part is missing, but referencing the actual structures present instead of creating new ones). And `aria-labelledby` would still work to get that label even if the thing it was labeled by was `visibility: hidden` (but not if it was `display:none`). But if the table-row had `visibility: hidden` and `tabindex="0"`, you still wouldn't be able to focus it, because it is hidden. --- For aria-hidden, my understanding is that it is similar to `display none`, in that it completely removes it and its children from the accessibility tree (as completely as `display none` removes it from the render box tree). So visibility property shouldn't matter at that point. -- GitHub Notification of comment by bradkemper Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6123#issuecomment-913018509 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Saturday, 4 September 2021 18:29:33 UTC