- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:30:31 +0000
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=BkRYcw8g92wSc=GrYSEpp6eH4T2rw0xuM15iuDrJbEA@mail.gmail.com>
hi Charles, >From testing this is what I have found [1]: *Chrome, Opera, Firefox & Safari: *Content within elements that have a hidden attribute are not displayed or navigable. * * *Note:* In all supporting browsers CSS display:none is applied to elements with the hidden attribute. The fact that as currently implemented CSS display:none hides content from all users is well understood and relied upon by authors. [1] http://html5accessibility.com/ regards Stevef On 13 February 2012 03:16, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > On 2/12/2012 6:48 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Charles Pritchard<chuck@jumis.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 2/12/2012 3:42 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> >>>> Jonas, you have a different perspective too. That's OK, too. Multiple >>>>>> viewpoints are a good thing. We are fleshing out real issues in this >>>>>> process. >>>>>> >>>>> It sounds like your only objection to allowing aria-describedby to >>>> point to @hidden elements is that it will delay publishing a finalized >>>> HTML5 spec. That is certainly an understandable argument, though given >>>> the extreme inertia for changing semantics of existing features, I'd >>>> rather spec the @hidden attribute correction from the beginning, than >>>> wait to fix it in HTML6. >>>> >>> >>> My comment was intended as: we should wait to break current behavior, >>> until >>> HTML6. If you want to consider it like breaking a bone to reset it, >>> that's >>> the idea. >>> The current situation of position, visibility: hidden and display: none >>> is >>> well tested, and I am certainly being conservative in my position of >>> altering core CSS architecture. >>> >>> As I understand it, @hidden is a shortcut for display: none, in >>> implementation and markup and may be implemented through the css >>> selector: >>> [hidden] { display: none; }. >>> >>> I'm concerned about the structural problems of altering the CSSOM >>> behavior >>> display: none. >>> >> No one is suggesting to change how CSSOM or display:none works. Please >> see my change proposal, it does none of these things. >> >> It sounds to me like you are worried about various changes to the >> internals of browsers. So far none of the actual browser implementors >> have expressed this concern. In fact, both Maciej and I have said that >> this seems implementable and that we have to write similar code anyway >> to support<canvas> accessibility. >> >> I'd have a lot more understanding for you being concerned if you >> actually were implementing a browser. I much rather that we ask people >> who actually implement browsers what is implementable. >> > > I've implemented and produced implementations of significant chunks of > CSSOM and HTML Forms in Canvas, as well as implementing the various > prerequisites needed for those implementations to work on a variety of > existing graphics APIs. > webkit uses display: none for @hidden. > > The Canvas accessibility mod involves only re-basing HTMLCanvasElement. It > does not involve dynamically re-basing the inheritance chain of arbitrary > elements. Maciej has not, as far as I can tell, worked on Canvas > accessibility code. > > My concern isn't implementation. It's the consequences that changing the > rules would have for web authors. > For one thing, they'd be able to focus on display: none elements. > > If that's not the case, then @hidden is being split from the display: none > semantic, and that is the crux of your proposal: > @hidden is a new semantic, and not a short-cut for display: none. And if > that is truly the case-- then I'm less alarmed, though this does introduce > a new semantic. > > > I'm concerned that encouraging display: none for perceivable content may >>> lead to a digital divide for users of older browsers and ATs. >>> >> This seems like an argument against adding any features to HTML5 or >> any other standard to improve accessibility. Since any time you do >> that you risk increasing the digital divide since only newer browsers >> would support said standard. >> > > No, it's an argument against changing display: none. I've been doing just > fine keeping my compatibility layers from HTML3 - HTML5. > > > You are of course entitled to your opinion. But I strongly disagree >> with it. Especially in the context of writing new webstandards which >> is what this mailing list is about. >> > > I was under the impression that HTML5 is under last call, and that we're > trying to finalize an existing web standard. > ... That's not to exclude discussion of HTML6. > > -Charles > >
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 03:31:20 UTC