Re: Split Issue 30?

not wanting to get into the process argument, but wanting to clarify the
technical.

>From my reading of the ARIA spec access to hidden content only relates to
text strings for accessible name calculation:

Skip hidden <terms#def_hidden> elements unless the author specifies to use
> them via an aria-labelledby or aria-describedby being used in the current
> computation. By default, users of assistive technologies <terms#def_at>won't receive the hidden information, but an author will be able to
> explicitly override that and include the hidden text alternative as part of
> the label string sent to the accessibility API<terms#def_accessibility_api>
> .
>

http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#namecalculation

regards
stevef

On 13 February 2012 13:28, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <
bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Laura Carlson
> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 2012, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> >
> >> I think that the key consideration for the Working Group should be to
> >> ensure that every issue and every proposal gets fair consideration.
> >> This needs to take priority over considerations of which proposal
> >> benefits.
> >
> > Fair consideration does not allow one proposal to benefit over another.
> >
> >> It seems to me that your argument is purely based on giving a tactical
> >> advantage to the "Instate Longdesc" Change Proposal, not on making
> >> sure that *all* proposals  get a fair hearing,
> >
> > That is completely backward. My argument is based on the fact that
> > Jonas stated on this list [1] in no uncertain terms that it would make
> > his proposal to obsolete longdesc stronger if his proposal was decided
> > first. Allowing that does not make for a fair hearing.
>
> The result is more important than the process.
>
> As far as I can tell, we need to address the conflict between what the
> ARIA documents are saying and what our HTML documents are saying.
>
> We have at least one WG member (Jonas) who would address the
> conformance of @longdesc differently depending on our resolution of
> that conflict.
>
> Do we have any WG members who would address the conflict between ARIA
> and HTML differently if @longdesc were conforming rather than
> obsolete? Can they articulate how and why? If so, then the issues
> cannot be logically decoupled. Otherwise, it makes sense to make the
> resolution of @longdesc depend on the resolution of the conflict
> between ARIA and HTML to avoid revisiting the issue once that conflict
> is resolved.
>
> Not resolving the conflict may make it hard for WG members to evaluate
> any of the @longdesc proposals because of the confusion about their
> statements about ARIA.
>
> In particular:
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/AlternativesAreNotViableSolutions#aria-describedby
>
> is now radically out of step with what the ARIA documents actually say.
>
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html