Re: Comment on ARIA 1.0: Problematic conformance requirement for aria-hidden

On 4/27/12, Steve Faulkner <> wrote:
> aria-hidden confuses me.
> I think that html5 hidden and CSS display:none should be functionally and
> semantically the same and that both should imply aria-hidden=true
Well you are not alone.
This is how I am trying to conceptualize requirements and figure where
aria-hidden fits in.
Situation 1: Hidden from view and not exposed to AT  -
display: none works, and can be toggled  on/off via JS.
It is widely supported by browsers and AT
Situation 2: Hidden from view, but exposed to AT -
Placing text off-screen works fine.  Also akin to the summary
attribute for a data-table

Situation 3: Visible (i.e. not hidden from view) but not exposed to AT
So aria-hidden can be used only for situation 1?

Two other questions I have:
1. Is it because today aria-hidden is not uniformly / adequately
supported by browsers and AT that the ARIA 1.0 Supported States and
Properties section suggests one should declare:
[aria-hidden="true"] { visibility: hidden; }
 Ironically, if the fall back mechanism requires CSS, then what's
wrong if this attribute were simply not there?
This view is reinforced with
Leif H Silli's opinion later down the thread:
>I personally know, with myself, that I am not going to use
>aria-hidden="true" on all temporarily hidden elements.
Turning aria-hidden on/off also requires JS. So what is the practical
benefit of this attribute really?
Today it is difficult to find Web content that does not use JS and CSS.

2. ARIA is considered as a bridging technology to fill in for gaps or
weaknesses of HTML 4 , JS etc.
Now HTML 5 is being designed, inter alia,  to fix these weaknesses, right?
So if one uses HTML 5 (after browsers and AT support it fully as
intended by HTML5), there will be no need to use ARIA with HTML5?
Sailesh Panchang

Received on Monday, 30 April 2012 16:32:19 UTC