Re: Issue 204 / Correct Hidden Attribute Section v4 (was RE: Moving forward with Issue-204)

Paul wrote:

> Can you give us an estimate of when you might be able to evaluate this
> revised CP from John?

I assume you're referring to the v4 proposal that John mentioned in [1].
(If so, my evaluation follows.)

John wrote:

> I have tried to address Ted's concerns, and have added the following
> proposed text to a new V4 Draft Proposal:

A meta comment: it's a shame that a new wiki page gets created each time
this proposal gets seriously revised; it prevents interested parties
from using the wiki software's built in diff tool to see what's changed.

That said, here's an evaluation of the v4 proposal based on my previous
evaluation of the v3 proposal[2]:

== The Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v4 proposal ==

Putting aside for a moment some editorial issues with the proposed
changes[3] the normative changes in the v4 proposal amount to the

1. The meaning of hidden="" is changed from "the element is not yet, or
   is no longer, relevant" to "the element is not yet, or is no longer,
   visible or interactive."

This is unchanged from the v3 proposal.

2. It removes the restriction that hidden="" elements "must not be used
   to hide content that could legitimately be shown in another

This is unchanged from the v3 proposal.

3. It replaces the restriction that "elements that are not hidden should
   not link to or refer to elements that are hidden" with several other,
   related restrictions (described below).

This is unchanged from the v3 proposal.

4. It adds the restriction that "Elements that are not themselves
   hidden must not hyperlink to elements that are hidden." (This is
   equivalent to half of the restriction removed in #3 above.)

This is unchanged from the v3 proposal.

5. It adds a normative restriction on the use of two WAI-ARIA
   attributes, aria-flowto="" and aria-owns="". I note that the PFWG has
   objected to such restrictions being present in HTML5, so this
   provision may result in a Formal Objection being raised. [4]

This is unchanged from the v3 proposal.

6. It adds normative language allowing authors to use hidden="" elements
   to provide descriptive text:

   "However, hidden elements MAY be used to provide descriptive text if
   such content provides a good user experience, by using
   aria-describedby and aria-labelledby and HTML labelling elements such
   as <label>, <legend>, <caption>, and <figcaption>."

This is unchanged from the v3 proposal.

7. It adds normative language disallowing authors from using structured
   content in hidden="" elements for providing descriptive text, though
   it allows structured content when authors provide a scripted
   mechanism for displaying the content on demand:

   "Authors SHOULD avoid using hidden elements for longer content that
   has structured text (e.g., headings, anchors, list markup, table
   markup, etc.), as some user-agents/AT will flatten the referenced
   elements to plain text, losing interactivity and semantic structure,
   as noted above in the ARIA API mappings. If a (scripted) mechanism is
   used to render the hidden content on-screen (on demand) so that
   sighted and non-sighted users can effectively interact with the
   structured content, then authors MAY provide structured content in
   this scenario."

This is a change from the v3 proposal. I have already given John
feedback on this change in [5].

I *think* that covers all the differences between the v3 and v4
proposals, but I may have missed something. John, did I catch


3. Which look like they haven't been fixed in the change from v3 to v4.

4. "The WAI Protocols and Formats Working Group strongly objects to any
   RFC 2119 normative requirements on WAI-ARIA markup in HTML Working
   Group specifications."


Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 22:18:19 UTC