- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 02:11:09 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19277 Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-i | |ua.no --- Comment #11 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2012-10-06 02:11:07 UTC --- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #8) > > > > Boris, what would you think about shifting the rule to be "display: none > > !important;"? Whenever I've used hidden, I've put that rule in my stylesheet, > > because otherwise I have to code defensively to avoid "un-hiding" things > > accidentally. > > But isn't this what the Issue 204 decision wants to do? To "un-hide" the > semantic structure under certain conditions (when referenced by an ARIA > attribute) so that the structure and content remains intact and "rendered" by a > speech synthesizer? What Tab suggested only relates to whether an author would be able to do foo[hidden]{display:block} /*Current*/ or if the author would have to do foo[hidden]{display:block!important} /*The result of Tab's proposal*/ > Right now, {display:none;} and {display: none !important;} are respected by > screen readers (as it maps as such to the AAPI). This also brings back the > question of what/how ARIA aware screen magnifiers are supposed to process this > content? A screen magnifier that insists on making the ARIA semantics available to its user, would probably have to use foo[hidden]{display:block!important}. And this would work fine in the typical cases. But note that ARIA allows you to point to for example <script> or <meta>, which could be situated inside the <head>. I think it is unlikely that screen magnifiers would be able to make such elements visible. But ARIA still allows it to be done. -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 6 October 2012 02:11:11 UTC