Re: From the HTML-WG about aria-hidden

Jason White, Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:59:26 +1100:
> Janina Sajka <> wrote:
>> It seems to me a lot of complication is being concocted to serve a
>> function far more simply served by longdesc. I still suggest a shave
>> with Occam's Razor.
> I was about to post a similar comment. Furthermore, as the example in this
> case shows, the unnecessary complexity is imposed directly on the 
> HTML author,
> which experience tells me is not a good recipe for widespread and correct
> implementations.

Jason, when I read your comment about complexity, I started to wonder 
why you eventually would see it as more complicated for the author to 
do <a hidden href> compared with <a aria-hidden=true href>.

But now I understand that what you really mean is that it would be 
simpler to add longdesc=link directly on the <img>. And I won't deny 
that you are right.

However, authors might find it simpler to test how @hidden works 
compared with testing how @longdesc works. Because, as you know, 
authors often don't get those things right that they don't see any 
effect from. [And I realize that now I talk as if the @longdesc support 
won't improve.] With @hidden, by contrast, authors can just remove 
@hidden and test how it works. Also, a @hidden section can be 
configured more - and do many more things - than simply containing a 

But regardless: I think you should consider that - in fact - one should 
be able to do the same thing with aria-hidden=true, that one can do 
with @hidden. So what's the problem if @hidden makes just makes it 
simpler do what nevertheless is possible?
Leif H Silli

Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 03:41:28 UTC