Re: Please put in interim text for the ISSUE-204 statement about exposing semantics of hidden content

On Sep 12, 2012 3:14 PM, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 12, 2012, at 3:06 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>
> > Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I think that's a good thought.
> >
> >
> >> Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Could we at least add language saying that this is only applicable
> >>> until a sizable portion of UAs have implemented the ability to expose
> >>> the full semantic content to users.
> >>>
> >>> Otherwise we'll be making poor recommendations, which is exactly what
> >>> that sentence is trying to avoid doing.
> >
> >
> > Respectfully, that is a really bad idea.
> >
> > One of the most oft cursed phrases of WCAG 1 was "Until user agents ..."
> > (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#until-user-agents) -
here,
> > what is sizable, when and who decides, what happens to backward
> > compatibility, etc., etc.?
> >
> > I would strenuously urge this Working Group to not fall into that trap
again
> > - it caused significant confusion and consternation prior to the
release and
> > adoption of WCAG 2.
>
> That example makes me lean even more towards my previous suggestion
(which you snipped) - which is to update the spec when and if the future
condition we imagine actually occurs.

Does that then mean that we should add a warning statement to any feature
which doesn't have accaptable fallback a warning statement that the feature
shouldn't be used?

I.e. should we add this to most of the new <input> types? To pushState? To
<video>? To <nav>?

If not, what criteria are we using to dtermjne which new features get a
warning?

Should we add it to headers and longdesc given their poor adoption in
non-AT UAs?

/ Jonas