- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:33:56 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Becky Gibson <Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>
- CC: PFWG Public Comments <public-pfwg-comments@w3.org>
Dear Becky Gibson: Thank you for your comments on the 24 February 2009 Last Call Working Draft of Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-wai-aria-20090224/). The Protocols and Formats Working Group has reviewed all comments received on the draft. We would like to know whether we have understood your comments correctly and whether you are satisfied with our resolutions. Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to us by 1 February 2010 to say whether you accept them or to discuss additional concerns you have with our response. You can respond in the following ways: * If you have a W3C account, we request that you respond online at http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/comments/acknowledge?document_version_id=1; * Else, by email to public-pfwg-comments@w3.org (be sure to reference our comment ID so we can track your response). Note that this list is publicly archived. Please see below for the text of comments that you submitted and our resolutions to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the archived copy of your original comment on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/, and may also include links to the relevant changes in the Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 editors' draft at http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/20091214/. Due to the scope of changes made in response to comments on the Last Call Working Draft of WAI-ARIA, we are returning the specification to Working Draft status. We will shortly publish a public "stabilization draft" of WAI-ARIA and updated Working Drafts of the accompanying documents. While these versions will not incorporate further discussion based on your acknowledgement of our response to your comments, we will work with you on your feedback as part of our preparation for the following version. You are also welcome to submit new comments on the new public versions in addition to sending your acknowledgement of our response to your previous comments. Note that if you still strongly disagree with our resolution on an issue, you have the opportunity to file a formal objection (according to 3.3.2 of the W3C Process, at http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews) to public-pfwg-comments@w3.org. Formal objections will be reviewed during the candidate recommendation transition meeting with the W3C Director, unless we can come to agreement with you on a resolution in advance of the meeting. Thank you for your time reviewing and sending comments. Though we cannot always do exactly what each commenter requests, all of the comments are valuable to the development of Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0. Regards, Janina Sajka, PFWG Chair Michael Cooper, PFWG Staff Contact Comment 40: comments on aria-hidden Date: 2009-04-07 Archived at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/2009AprJun/0032.html Relates to: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 - aria-hidden (state) <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-wai-aria-20090224/#aria-hidden> Status: Accepted proposal ------------- Your comment: ------------- I find the section on aria-hidden a bit confusing [1]: <quote> If a menu is only visible after some user action, the aria-hidden attributeshould be set to trueuntil the menu is presented and the aria-hiddenattribute is removed, indicating that the menu is visible. This allows the assistive technology to properly skip hidden elements in the document. It is recommended that authors key visibility of objectsoff this attribute, rather than change visibility and separately have to remember to update this property. CSS 2 provides a way to select on attribute values ([CSS], Section 5.8.1). The following CSS declaration makes content visible unless the aria-hidden attribute is true; scripts need only update the valueof this attribute to change visibility: </quote> The first paragraph implies that I should actually add and remove the aria-hidden attribute rather than just changing the value from true to false. Is this really the case? Does it really matter if I just toggle the value using setAttribute("aria-hidden", newValue) rather than doing setAttribute("aria-hidden", true); and removeAttribute("aria-hidden")? But, to confuse matters, the next paragraph instructs me to use CSS and only change the value. This recommendation seems to conflict the first paragraph? Although removing the attribute value itself should still trigger the CSS rule properly since aria-hidden will no longer equal true. Also, I think it should be noted that not all user agents support this CSS 2 selection feature. Yes, you could argue that those same user agents also don't support ARIA, but with or without ARIA I need my hide/show code to work in IE 7 and I'd rather not have to code it twice - once using scripting and again using CSS! [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/#aria-hidden -------------------------------- Response from the Working Group: -------------------------------- We have accepted your proposal.
Received on Tuesday, 15 December 2009 00:34:06 UTC