- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 04:31:43 +0000
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19277 --- Comment #29 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> --- (In reply to James Craig from comment #28) > One of the normative statements: > > > User agents should not render elements that have the hidden attribute specified. > > ...would then be in violation with the current implementations, which allow > this content to be rendered via author styles. If this is a normative > statement, why not add the !important directive to avoid the cases listed in > comment #12? 1) It is a “should”. Not a ”must”. 2) Above you said you agreed to the idea that a visible <el hidden> would *not* map to aria-hidden="true". If so, why is it important to hide it with !important? It seems to me that “strong” authoring error is more important if CSS visibility does *not* affect the mapping to aria-hidden="true". > > Perhaps the PF wants something that can be *validated*? > > The members of PF are usually happy with statements that can be interpreted > unambiguously, whether or not they are easy to validate with an automated > script. Automation would be ideal, but not required. It is was interesting to read Henri’s words in comment #14 about how, in epub, a section with @hidden can still be viewed, when read in a "non-default" mode. I think that one option could as well be to say that it is *not* an author error to make hidden visible. Perhaps @hidden should only relly mean that the element *defaults* to be hidden? That would be an unambiguous thing/statement, would it not? The epub example is an example of non-JS interactivity in combination with @hidden. Clearly, the main idea with @hidden is that one can remove the attribute via JavaScript. But what when non-JS means (that does not remove the attribute) makes it visible? Really, it would be a good idea to first implement the idea that a visible <el hidden> does not map to aria-hidden="true" before deciding about what the authoring error eventually should be. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2013 04:31:45 UTC