- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:16:52 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18744 --- Comment #21 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> 2012-09-10 00:16:51 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #15) > > > 3) Historically, it appears that hidden or display:none labels are not > > presented at all by assistive technologies, at least in my testing. So the > > change wouldn't just be flattened to structured, it would be not presenting to > > presenting. > > Are you suggesting that <label for> should have the implicit semantics of > @aria-labelledby but not when the label element is hidden with @hidden or > display: none? Currently the Editor's Draft does not define any implicit ARIA semantics for the <label> element or its for attribute. I would guess this is because ARIA does not have a property that directly corresponds to the reversed label-for mapping as opposed to the usual labelled-by mapping. So you can't actually provide literally equivalent aria markup. You would not only need to imply aria-labelledby on the target It may be worth discussing whether the spec could in fact describe an equivalent ARIA semantic for <label for>, but that seems beyond the scope of this bug. That being said, I do think a <label> element that is hidden should create no labeling association, but labels or descriptions referenced from non-hidden content actually should. The common principle being that the side creating the reference must not be hidden in order to create the reference. -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 00:16:53 UTC