Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] CSS inert (Issue #1055)

alice left a comment (w3ctag/design-reviews#1055)

I'm going to repeat my two main points:

> I think that the shape of the proposal here, when presented as a solution to the problems of carousels specifically, represents a fairly severe scope creep.

> I think a full exploration of inert-escaping scenarios would also be highly worthwhile: the fact that developers were so eager to add it to the scope of this issue shows that there is a very real and urgent need there. However, I don't think they've been done justice here.

A full exploration would carefully consider use cases including component-modal UI, as well as considering the downsides of any particular solution. 

The coordination problem you mention proves my point: if authors get that wrong, especially if page authors are using multiple components which all use the `interactivity` property, most users - _and thus most authors_ - won't notice there's a problem, but assistive technology users will be left with a broken experience.

> Allowing it to be undone makes the property behave similar to `visibility` (which also applies / inertness when hidden and can undo itself) and `pointer-events` (not inert, but not also interactable with by pointing devices).

This is not a justification. `visibility` is easily debuggable: content will either be visible or it won't. Properties which disproportionately affect assistive technology users have different considerations.

`pointer-events` also doesn't disproportionately affect assistive technology users.

We have a responsibility when making changes to the web to carefully consider the impact on all users, and (in my opinion) _especially_ the impact on assistive technology users, since those impacts are less likely to be considered by authors, for all sorts of reasons. It doesn't seem like that care has been taken here.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1055#issuecomment-2734799948
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1055/2734799948@github.com>