On 21 Jan 2011, at 18:17, Belov, Charles wrote: > Daniel Weck [mailto:daniel.weck@gmail.com] wrote on Wednesday, January > 19, 2011 8:09 AM >> >> Oops, I apologize for this editorial mistake: I meant >> "display:none", not "visibility:hidden". The former >> effectively 'deactivates' an element (so to speak) whereas >> the latter is more similar to "voice- volume:0%". In other >> words, "visibility:hidden" preserves the visual space that >> the element would normally occupy if it was visible >> (resulting in an empty or transparent area that still takes >> part in the page layout), and conversely "voice-volume:0%" >> results in an audio silence lasting as long as the duration >> of non-silent TTS playback. >> Regards, Daniel > > Actually, that's an argument in favor of speak:none. It would be > inconvenient to make listeners wait for something that is merely > hidden > to sighted readers. speak:none is not needed, authors can use display:none instead. Personally I think it makes a lot more sense to reuse existing CSS features, especially when the resulting authoring practice matches accessibility guidelines (e.g. a non-displayed visual element gets ignored by a speech processor, and any visible graphical element gets spoken-out). Is there really a compelling reason to keep speak:none ? I can't think of any. Regards, DanielReceived on Saturday, 22 January 2011 07:56:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:55 UTC