- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:15:30 +0100
- To: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
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