Re: FORMAL OBJECTION (was RE: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-204 aria-hidden)

On Aug 15, 2012, at 15:30 , John Foliot <> wrote:

> David Singer wrote:
>>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>> I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest that. I don't think a mouth-stick
> user
>>>> who is not visually impaired would ever be exposed to the link,
>>> So then this technique is *ONLY* for visually impaired users? 
>> maybe I am being naive here, but surely the rule is, for any UA "if you
> expose
>> the link to the user, you must also be prepared to expose the content it
> links
>> to".
> Not at all, I think that this is one of the key discussion points of this
> thread. 
> At the risk of being intemperate, I think that the current Proposal is that
> which is naive. 
> It proposes that a class of HTML-rich content only be exposed, in its full
> HTML richness, to users who can "hear it" but will never see it (and as I
> write that, I wonder aloud how a Deaf person might access this content today
> as well). 

No, that's not how I view it.  It's allowing content to be marked to say that this (hidden) object stands in this relationship to this (exposed) object. Every UA needs to choose whether to either (a) not mention the relationship to the user, as the target object is hidden or (b) mention the relationship, and be prepared to expose the target.

That's it. (I may be, and often am, wrong). No talk of any specific access modes, needs, or anything. The design of *how* you expose the relationship and target is left to be a suitable affordance for the modality of the user-agent.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2012 20:52:53 UTC