- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:18:59 +0100
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, 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
Hi Steve, What if one does this: <section hidden aria-hinnen='false'> Does it help? Leif H Silli Steve Faulkner, Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:30:31 +0000: > 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 10:19:34 UTC