- From: Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 13:13:37 +0000
- To: www-style@w3.org, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Charles Belov <Charles.Belov@sfmta.com>, Mark Kenny <beingmrkenny@gmail.com>
Hi Mark, interesting points, thanks. The current draft of CSS3-Speech Module already extends the semantics of "display:none" to signify that elements removed from the (graphical) layout are to be ignored by TTS renderers (i.e. implicit application of speak:none to the entire affected HTML fragment). It is also worth noting that an "aural" stylesheet may be authored in such a way that when activated (i.e. when a screen-reader or speech-enabled browser is processing the page), it not only adds a layer of speech- related instructions, but also alters the visual presentation to meet the needs of users who are not totally blind. <accessibility-hat-removed> I appreciate that the application scope of the CSS3-Speech Module may be broader than assistive technologies, and your point about multimedia use-cases is a fair one. If we accept a total disconnect between the graphical and the aural dimensions, then a fully invisible HTML fragment (i.e. not taking part in the page layout, but still available as "raw data" in the DOM) could be picked-up and rendered by TTS. Conversely, a visible graphical element may not generate any speech output at all. </accessibility-hat-removed> The problem is that this surely opens the door to some wacky content, potentially breaking the familiar screen-reader experience. Is this a tradeoff that we can tolerate, or should we adopt a more rigid approach to be consistent with accessibility guidelines ? Given the forecasted uptake of JavaScript + HTML5 audio/video in the multimedia web, I fail to see a strong compelling generic multimedia use-case for CSS3-Speech, which is more likely to be used in the context of visual impairments and other eyes-free experiences (e.g. in-car driving directions). Any thoughts on that ? Regards, Daniel On 22 Jan 2011, at 12:24, Mark Kenny wrote: > 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, Daniel > > It would be useful where you want to present something to visual > browsers but hide it from audio browsers. > > For example if you had a page with instructions on how to download > something: most visual browsers have similar functionality, but I > would imagine audio browsers are different and would need separate > instructions, therefore the visual ones would be irrelevant. > > Not a particularly brilliant example perhaps, but it's at least a > real-world one. Personally I think it could be a more useful feature > in the future, especially since HTML and CSS are being used more and > more for multi-media applications where flash is used currently. Can > you see a use for speak:none; in a game for example? > > My other objection to removing it is semantic. "Display" doesn't > sound like an auditory property. I suppose here we could get into > all kinds of mess with something like "render:none;" for both, but > maybe that's too far... > > Cheers, > > Mark Daniel Weck daniel.weck@gmail.com
Received on Saturday, 22 January 2011 13:14:13 UTC