Re: Finalizing an Issue-204 CP

Hi Cynthia and everyone,

> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v2#Accessibility_API_mappings
>
> 1) rewrote summary to talk more about @hidden being simpler than CSS, rather than @aria-describedby being simpler than something else
> 2) changed example to one using an input and a label rather than an image with a short and long description
> 3) added section on what happens in the API when the item is hidden or not hidden
> 4) added the aria-labelledby row to the table from UIAG to show that the behavior is not just for description
> 5) changed the details section to offer stronger advice to authors not to do this with structured content.
> 6) minor copy edits, adding <code> styling, etc.

Wow. Big improvements. Thank you Cynthia for your work. This is really
coming along. I have the following suggestions. With these few
changes, I see no reason not to withdraw my proposal in favor of
yours.

1. Change:
<p class="note">Any structure in the referenced element, including
headings, links, tables, paragraphs, and form elements, will be lost.
The text children of the element will be flattened to a string. As
such, authors should only use this technique for where such flattened
content will provide a good user experience. At the time of this
writing, some screen reader products will read both the accessible
name and accessible description, so authors should take care with the
length of text provided via this method.</p>

To something like:

"This technique must not be used for longer content that has
structured text as accessible name and description calculation
[WAI-ARIA] will flatten the referenced elements to plain text, losing
interactivity and semantic structure.
<p class="note">Additionally at the time of this writing, some screen
reader products will read both the accessible name and accessible
description, so authors should take care with the length of text
provided via this method.</p>"

Although your current version is a big improvement over and does offer
stronger advice to authors to not use the technique with structured
content than your previous versions, Benjamin's April 21 message
provides strong rationale for having this part of the spec text be
normative (last few paragraphs of:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Apr/0166.html )

By the way, this new suggested spec text is a variation of what I
have/had in my CP. The main difference is I have/had it as a "should
not". But I can't think of a reason to not make it a "must not". If
someone can provide rationale for "should not", "should not" is okay
with me.)
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/index.php?title=ChangeProposals/CorrectHidden&oldid=12763#warning

2. I would suggest reviewing and possibly deleting the problematic
examples that Benjamin identified.

3. Change:
"The @hidden attribute is the simplest, most straightforward mechanism
for hiding elements in HTML or CSS."

To something like:
"The @hidden attribute is a mechanism for hiding elements in HTML."

Rationale:
* The phrase: "simplest, most straightforward" is opinion and
circumstantial. It may be true for some authors under some situations.
In others it may not be.
* The @hidden attribute doesn't hide elements in CSS. It hides things in HTML.

4. Change:

All instances of the word "string" to the words "plain string text" or
"plain text".

Rationale see Benjamin's April 21 message:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Apr/0166.html

Again, thanks Cynthia. I really appreciate all of your work on this.
Thanks to you too Benjamin for your keen observations.

Best Regards,
Laura
--
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 17:10:37 UTC