Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-view-transitions-1] Add a11y text to specify how VT works with it (#9365)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-view-transitions-1] Add a11y text to specify how VT works with it`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Add accessibility non-treatment agreed up on at TPAC to the spec, stating the view transition pseudos are presentational and have no special accessibility needs`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;emeyer> vmpstr: We talked at TPAC about how the view tree is not exposed to the a11y tree in any way<br>
&lt;emeyer> …We would like to make changes to the spec so we have things written down<br>
&lt;emeyer> …During the spec edits, we refactored to say the underlying element is invisible, but that’s not the correct term<br>
&lt;emeyer> …We would need a different term that means it’s visually hidden but exposed to a11y<br>
&lt;khush> q+<br>
&lt;astearns> ack khush<br>
&lt;emeyer> khush: There is spec text that was in before we changed it, which said “invisible boxes”<br>
&lt;emeyer> …I think that’s closer to what we want<br>
&lt;emeyer> …It did miss talking about pseudo-elements being skipped by screen readers and so on<br>
&lt;emeyer> PaulG: One of the reason I didn’t go back to APA because this seemed presentational<br>
&lt;emeyer> …Presentational content is not lifted into the AX tree<br>
&lt;emeyer> …Unless these pseudo-elements can carry additional information the way ::before and ::after can, I don’t see a reason to push for this<br>
&lt;emeyer> vmpstr: Can you clarify?  The proposal is that we’ll skip the AX tree<br>
&lt;emeyer> PaulG: Ah, okay, I thought the proposal was to augment.  We’re aligned, thank you<br>
&lt;emeyer> …I think presentational will mean something to a11y folks and they’rll start to understand this has no mapped role<br>
&lt;emeyer> …I think presentational is the term that will make the most sense<br>
&lt;astearns> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;emeyer> fantasai: Seems like we all agree on the behavior<br>
&lt;emeyer> …Is the question how we describe that in the spec, or what’s the open question?<br>
&lt;emeyer> vmpstr: It’s just about the spec text<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: We could resolve to update the spec to take the feedback we received at TPAC<br>
&lt;emeyer> PaulG: Not sure if you need to tag for horizontal review, but I would take it to APA to make sure they don’t have a problem<br>
&lt;emeyer> astearns: So, we add text saying the pseudos are not special and don’t need to be treated differently<br>
&lt;fantasai> Something like "The view transition pseudo tree is only used for visual rendering, and is not exposed to other media or to the accessibility tree" ?<br>
&lt;emeyer> …Any objections?<br>
&lt;emeyer> (silence)<br>
&lt;emeyer> RESOLVED: Add accessibility non-treatment agreed up on at TPAC to the spec, stating the view transition pseudos are presentational and have no special accessibility needs<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9365#issuecomment-1737730395 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2023 16:33:37 UTC