Re: Automated A11y non-issues and SC Parsing 4.1.1

On 18/07/2016 14:06, Jonathan Avila wrote:

> But my guess is that Josh is talking about a scenario where the ids
> might be hidden with CSS.

Yes, as I wrote in my reply, that's in fact the scenario I'm talking 
about as well.

> I can think of some scenarios where this
> could be an issue.   For example, aria-labelledby and aria-describedby
> can reference content with display none.   In these cases you could in
> theory have duplicate ids where the id is referenced and the wrong
> accessible name of description could be calculated.

Do we have a list of situations where even something that's 
display:none'd is still exposed/recognised (via the accessibility tree/API)?

> So we can't just
> throw out this test.

I don't think anybody was talking about throwing out the test, but 
rather refining the wording to ensure that false positives/false 
negatives are adequately mentioned.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Monday, 18 July 2016 13:16:17 UTC