W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2012

Re: [updated] proposed rewording of ISSUE-204 text

From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:13:02 -0700
Cc: W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
Message-id: <3832F23C-1BD1-4739-A9CB-265FB2A5F8E9@apple.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, "janina@rednote.net Sajka" <janina@rednote.net>
On Sep 12, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> Actually, there's an unaddressed clash here between the long text
> description type use case, and the IBM use of hidden that Rich has been
> telling us about.
> Laura correctly states the former. Users need to know that hidden
> content exists, and get to decide whether to access that content.

We're in agreement that is a good thing then. We're opening the language so that it allows and even encourages future implementation possibilities without breaking existing implementations.

> In IBM's case authors make this decision and it's actually harmful for
> users to access that content.

Showing hidden content in an unexpected way could be harmful, but no one is suggesting that.

> It would be harmful to support both use cases without further
> distinction to clearly indicate which is which.

While I don't agree with your certainty that this would be harmful, I do agree it'd be useful to clarify that distinction. Will you suggest some wording? 

Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 07:13:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:27 UTC