RE: Moving forward with Issue-204

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> 
> I believe Ted's section on "The AllowAriaReferHidden proposal" below
> accurately summarizes the changes proposed by AllowAriaReferHidden.

Hi Maciej,

Ted has done a great job of attempting to untangle the mess this currently
is in - I am personally still processing his email (but thanks Ted!). While
it may be a summary, is it also the exact change that is being proposed, or
a high-level over-view?


> In
> addition, a formatted exact textual diff is available here:
> <http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6979&to=6980>.

I think a more accurate description would be that it has been somewhat
styled using CSS. When you can't see pink and green, it might as well not be
anything (which, in fact, is exactly what Janina is getting).

Further, as she notes, there are numerous special characters that are almost
ASCII-art-like in their usage: great when you can see the page, not so great
when you have to listen to it via VoiceOver alone. What exactly does "at at
minus two hundred twenty-seven, six plus two hundred twenty-seven, twelve at
at"" mean?

While I will stop short of a rant on the lack of WCAG conformance the WHATWG
(html5.org) tool demonstrates, suffice to say that it isn't even "good
enough for government work"... 
(for a text-only page to fail WCAG A/Section 508 requirements is quite a
feat!)


> 
> While more info may be provided, the summary plus the exact diff are
> hopefully enough to make some progress.
> 

I think this is exactly what Janina is requesting, that more information, in
the form of actual prose in the Details section
(http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/AllowAriaReferHidden#Details
), be supplied to the Working Group for 'AllowAriaReferHidden' (unless the
Chairs have previously allowed a high-level description in place of such,
which I do not recall being requested or granted.)

JF

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 01:17:46 UTC