- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:12:05 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18744 --- Comment #28 from Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> 2012-09-11 07:12:01 UTC --- (In reply to comment #26 and comment #27) > I don't necessarily agree with that design pattern This is something I expected authors to try, because authors have for years tried to hide/show error messages for all modalities using "display: none". This is one of the use-cases @irrelevant/@hidden was supposed to address, back in the day. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2008Mar/0173.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-whatwg-archive/2008Aug/0479.html >, but there is a potential > here to have a more explicit way for users to switch this explicitly for the > example you describe. > > aria-hidden="true" > > Hides from accessibility APIs no matter if the content is shown or hidden. If an element with @aria-hidden=true is referenced by @aria-describedby it still contributes to the computed accessible description. http://www.w3.org/WAI.new/PF/aria/roles#namecalculation http://www.w3.org/WAI.new/PF/aria/terms#def_hidden Therefore it's not hidden from accessibility APIs … right? The only way for the author to do what he was trying to do is add/remove the referenced element from the DOM or to add/remove the id from @aria-describedby. > think aria-hidden should override hidden="" in all cases, regardless of > modality. The flipside applies, too: > > <div hidden aria-hidden="false">…</div> > > That is, specifically hidden from mainstream interfaces, but overridden so that > that the structure is available in Accessibility APIs. That does seem to be what the main spec says: http://www.w3.org/WAI.new/PF/aria/states_and_properties#aria-hidden FWIW the text in the UA implementation guide seems to be saying "host language semantics" like CSS "display: none" ("host language"? "semantics"?) win here however: http://www.w3.org/WAI.new/PF/aria-implementation/#exclude_elements2 > (Disclaimer: to my > knowledge, no Users Agents currently expose hidden content this way.) I'm surprised this wasn't cited as a "feature at risk". PFWG will wait for implementations of that before letting it pass CR … right? -- 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 Tuesday, 11 September 2012 07:12:11 UTC