- From: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:41:40 -0400
- To: Alexander Surkov <surkov.alexander@gmail.com>, Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
- CC: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, David Bolter <dbolter@mozilla.com>, PF <public-pfwg@w3.org>
On 2015-03-26 9:03 AM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
> What you say makes sense, ...
Wonders never cease :-)
> ... but as long as it concerns to error handling it's not a big deal
> from AT perspective which way we handle it. ...
That's not what I'm told by one AT developer. Having to deal with
empty, non-signficant rowgroup accessibles is a pain, apparently. It
clutters the accessibility tree with useless stuff.
> The implementation matters though. In Firefox we used to treat @role
> attribute presence as indication of the accessible (except
> role="presentation"), thus the requirement to not create an accessible
> sounds like extra work for me.
So, always creating an accessible for rowgroup is because of
implementation efficiency? However, I'm a little confused since that is
inconsistent with: "Firefox doesn't expose group accessibles for HTML
tables like thead, tfoot or tbody in general ...". Does FF *always*
provide an accessible for "thead"? Or only when it is focusable, etc.?
Thanks for the disussion and clarifications.
--
;;;;joseph.
'Array(16).join("wat" - 1) + " Batman!"'
- G. Bernhardt -
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 13:42:12 UTC