- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:44:31 -0800
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > On 2/1/12 12:29 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Charles Pritchard<chuck@jumis.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Jonas Sicking<jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Charles Pritchard<chuck@jumis.com> >>>> 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" Indeed. I was talking about @longdesc (among other attributes). But I was not talking about deprecating @longdesc. I don't see that as a conflict. > But back to being on topic: hidden is the same as display: none. > That's my understanding. Correct. > 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). display:none does not affect event bubbling. It does affect ability to receive focus, so that might be something we need to fix. > 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. I can only speak to how AT interact with Firefox. The AT software do not dig into the firefox layout trees directly, instead there is a special tree of objects specifically created for AT tools. This means that to make rich content work in display:none and @hidden content there are no changes required to change AT software, only Firefox needs to be changed. I would expect the same to apply to other browsers. Hence, the parties that we are asking to be changed here is not AT software but rather browsers. So far I have not heard browser claim that this is a too hard change to make. All I hear is people trying to keep status quo and worried about suggesting any changes to any software, rather than see what solution would lead to the best accessibility. / Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2012 19:45:29 UTC