- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 16:28:43 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-flexbox][css-grid] Providing authors with a method of opting into following the visual order, rather than logical order`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: the WG not accept ‘visual-order’ as a switch, but continue working on other methods of order that will aid various technologies` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <emeyer> Topic: [css-flexbox][css-grid] Providing authors with a method of opting into following the visual order, rather than logical order<br> <emeyer> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7387<br> <Rossen_> s/will be republished/Publish new WD of css-contain-3/<br> <emeyer> TabAtkins: In Rachel’s post, she points out with Grid and flexbox, visual order can be divergent from source order<br> <emeyer> …That’s literally the feature. But it’s easy for the two orders to diverge, such as styling a grid differently based on media queries.<br> <emeyer> …Suggestion is to have a way for authors to indicate to the browser that it should present elements to the accessibility tree in source or visual order<br> <Rossen_> q+<br> <emeyer> …Example, in masonry layout, the visual order is guaranted to get shuffled<br> <emeyer> …We’ll need to address how this impacts focus navigation; lot of details to get worked out<br> <emeyer> …Core idea is: can we give CSS authors to have a way to opt into different accessibility ordering?<br> <emilio> q+<br> <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7387#issuecomment-1160991881<br> <emeyer> fantasai: I have a lot of concerns, as did posters in the thread<br> <emeyer> …One is that having focus order differ from screen reader order is a real problem<br> <emeyer> …There are a bunch of other considerations like: some examples should have source order changed, not be addressed via this sort of mechanism<br> <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7387#issuecomment-1217193918<br> <emeyer> …I think we should consider that focus and screen reader order should always match<br> <emeyer> …There are clear use cases for disconnecting layout order and screen reader order, because visual-perception order is not the same as layout order<br> <emeyer> …There are examples in the thread where you don’t want to follow the box order<br> <emeyer> …There are a lot of cases where people are using ‘order’ as a convenience and we don’t want to encourage that<br> <emeyer> …It’s important to note that each hierarchical level of a page can have different needs for ordering. We should have something that can do fine-tuned adjustments on specific cases, not be a document blanket<br> <emeyer> …We should put pressure on the DOM side to provide an API for letting people rearrange DOM order, something simple<br> <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7387#issuecomment-1217193918<br> <emeyer> …We should also add some ability to change reading order in CSS<br> <fantasai> reading-order: source | auto | <integer><br> <miriam> q+<br> <emeyer> …We’ll want the ability to force source order, there should also be the ability for the author to specify exact reading order<br> <fantasai> order: <'box-order'> [ <'reading-order'> | reading-matches-box-order ]?<br> <fantasai> box-order: <integer> /* current order property */<br> <fantasai> reading-order: source | auto | <integer><br> <emeyer> Rossen_: huge plus-one on all that<br> <fantasai> i/Rossen_: huge/fantasai: This is my proposal. Open to others, but I think `focus-order: visual` as proposed earlier would be harmful/<br> <emeyer> …Very long-standing issue. I strongly believe calling this ‘visual-order’ will create misperceptions<br> <fantasai> We have box-sizing, and box-decoration-break, border-box/content-box, etc. So we've already established the idea of CSS boxes<br> <emeyer> …As we are thinking through this, there’s an intersection of how to handle focus, how to handle search, screen reader order; if these are in mistmach, they cause confusion<br> <Rossen_> ack Rossen_<br> <Rossen_> ack emeyer<br> <smfr> make d<br> <Rossen_> ack emilio<br> <emeyer> emilio: The proposals seem fine but I think there’s a lot more complexity than it seems<br> <emeyer> …focus order is already not following the accessiblity tree order<br> <emeyer> …At the very least, we should figure out what tree we want to sort on; we might want focus order to be flat-tree order<br> <Rossen_> ack miriam<br> <emeyer> miriam: My main concern as an author is where it happens automatically, like in ‘grid-flow: dense’<br> <emeyer> …Will ‘auto’ solve those sorts of things?<br> <emeyer> fantasai: Yes. I’m open to which value should be the default.<br> <Rossen_> q?<br> <emeyer> Rossen_: Sounds like there’s a set of good proposals that Elika summarized, but don’t feel like we’re ready to resolve on any of them<br> <emeyer> …Do you want to discount any of these now, Elika?<br> <emeyer> fantasai: I’m against having a switch that just says “use the visual order” because I think it would be mis-used and allow people to stop thinking about source versus reading order<br> <fantasai> s/mis-used/misunderstood and mis-used/<br> <emeyer> Rossen_: So we can resolve on this and continue to work on the details of how this will work<br> <fantasai> s/versus reading order/versus reading order to the detriment of getting it right/<br> <emeyer> RESOLVED: the WG not accept ‘visual-order’ as a switch, but continue working on other methods of order that will aid various technologies<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7387#issuecomment-1218245052 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2022 16:28:45 UTC