Re: Revert Request

On 2/1/12 12:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Charles Pritchard<>  wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Jonas Sicking<>  wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Charles Pritchard<>  wrote:
>>>> On 1/30/12 8:47 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>>>> Similarly:
>>>>> <table aria-describedby="desc">...</table>
>>>>> <div hidden id=desc>Description here</div>
>>>> While I disagree with this method.
>>> Why? Assuming that the explicit goal is to create content only visible
>>> to AT, which is the stated requirement from the accessibility
>>> community.
>> Because it conflicts with existing practices and assumptions about content, both from a general CSS/DOM perspective as well as AT and ARIA. The requirement here is for a semantic means of presenting content without affecting the default visual representation; and the issue is whether the existing mechanism can be obsoleted. There is not a suitable replacement at present.
> Please note that I was in no way talking about deprecating @longdesc
> in my email, as explicitly mentioned.
> What I was talking about was the practice of providing AT-only content
> by using aria and other AT attributes to point to content which has
> been hidden using @hidden. This includes using @longdesc to point to
> such in-page content. Please see examples in my email.

Here is how I read this:
"I was in no way talking about deprecating @longdesc... I was talking 
about was the practice of providing AT-only content... This includes 
using @longdesc"

But back to being on topic: hidden is the same as display: none.
That's my understanding.

display: none is a sledgehammer. It's heavy duty. I think there was some 
talk about tree flattening concerns.
There are certainly issues with event bubbling, and simply receiving 
events (like focus).

It's completely non-backwards compatible, as hidden really does hide 
things, it takes them right out of several trees.

That's the biggest issue. Regardless of ease of use or merit, it's too 
big of a departure from how all of the browsers out there currently 
work. It's too much work on AT vendors.

> It appears that you are opposing something else (deprecating
> @longdesc) which is not what my email was about, nor what the original
> email in this thread was about.

As I recall, the proposal in question was made on the topic of 
deprecating longdesc.


Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2012 08:41:45 UTC