- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:46:46 +0300
On Mar 31, 2008, at 08:10, Nicholas C. Zakas wrote: > @irrelevant is virtually indistinguishable from setting content to > display: none. My point in bringing up accessibility with a possible > attribute or element is to figure out where the lines between HTML > and CSS are, as it appears HTML 5 has muddied the water. As I stated > earlier on this list, if something is truly "irrelevant", then it's > not included in the page. Something that's on the page and hidden is > relevant, just perhaps not at the current time, which led to the > suggestion on this list to rename the attribute "ignore". I agree that the semantic fig leaf is confusing. It means "hidden" (from all interaction modes). > I understand your point about superfluity being defined by the > presentation (one could argue the same about relevance...). Aural > CSS seemed, at one point, like it would make sense for handling such > issues. However, since screen readers read the "screen" media > styles, it doesn't really help. More to the point, it is unreasonable to expect casual authors to supply sensible aural CSS even if it were supported. > I still feel like it's a good idea to have an optional attribute on > each element that indicates the element's content should not be > ignored by screen readers regardless of the style applied. Perhaps > this could be better handled by an ARIA role... As currently drafted, ARIA has aria-hidden, which is essentially a less elegant duplicate of HTML5 'irrelevant'. As far as I can tell, ARIA doesn't specify aria-hidden=false as overriding display: none; in accessibility API exposure. (But then in general, ARIA doesn't specify processing requirements in the way we expect from HTML5.) -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 31 March 2008 03:46:46 UTC