W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pfwg-comments@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Revised response to your comments on Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:36:15 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTilsO8AgAFrnMCdfbTp7ywmlt6FOF9L7g0QZwg3E@mail.gmail.com>
To: PFWG Public Comments <public-pfwg-comments@w3.org>
i accept this response.

>
> Comment 115: Rendered text
> Date: 2009-04-16
> Archived at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg-comments/2009AprJun/0063.html
> Relates to: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 - 4.2.7.3. Text Equivalent Computation <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-wai-aria-20090224/#textequivalentcomputation>
> Status: Alternate action taken
>
> -------------
> Your comment:
> -------------
> 4.2.7.3 Text Equivalent Computation
>
> Is it really a good idea to use rendered text instead of the DOM? This
> creates yet another interpretation of the html, and seems like it could
> lead to subtle bugs.
>
> --------------------------------
> Response from the Working Group:
> --------------------------------
> --- NEW RESPONSE TO COMMENT REJECTION ---
>
> It's come to our attention that a related note was out of place. That
> error has been corrected. See the following note, now associated with the
> text in question.
>
> "Note: Though a user agent may make efforts to compute a text alternative
> from CSS-generated text in the absence of text content determinable from
> the DOM, authors should not provide text through a style sheet, as a user
> agent may incorrectly determine the text alternative."
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria/roles#textalternativecomputation
>
> Although we encourage authors to comply with WCAG principles, the ARIA
> spec is not intended to be used as an enforcement of WCAG. Our end goal is
> to provide an accessible solution to users, so we encourage UAs or ATs to
> attempt to bridge any gaps in inaccessible content. The note is to
> discourage authors from relying on that technique, but because
> CSS-generated text is visible, if an AT or UA can include that text in the
> accessible name, it should.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- PREVIOUS RESPONSE TO COMMENT ---
>
>
>
> Consider these style rules and fragment of HTML markup:
>
> p[title]:before { content: attr(title); }
>
> <p title="Step 1:">Put up the tent.</p>
>
> A user agent (browser) will render this as:
>
> ...
> Step 1: Put up the tent.
> ...
>
> Because the title attribute is only included if there is no other text
> content, the DOM representation of the text equivalent is "Put up the
> tent."
>
> Though a user agent should make its best effort to compute a text
> equivalent from CSS-generated text in the absence of text content
> determinable from the DOM, authors should not provide text through a style
> sheet, as a user agent may incorrectly determine the text equivalent.
>
> Authors need to be aware how the label text will be computed by the user
> agent, so as to structure markup and CSS appropriately.  Since they are
> creating the CSS content rules, they must have an idea of how the entire
> string will look.
>
> In the case of a text equivalent checker tool that authors might use to
> confirm that their labels are properly encoded:  the checker tool must,
> like user agents, look for any CSS content and insert/append it as
> necessary.
>
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2010 18:36:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:45:58 UTC