Re: CSS issue: Need fallback alternatives for CSS generated *text* content containing unicode glyphs

On Nov 15, 2012, at 2:48 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:13 PM, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:
>> An alternate solution, that was proposed off-list, was for CSS to offer another property to indicate whether the value of the content property was considered decorative or not.
>> 
>>        .expandable:before {
>>                content: "\25BA"; /* a.k.a. ► */
>>                generated-content: decorative; /* something like this? like adding aria-hidden="true", but applied to the psuedo-element */
>>        }
> 
> In this vein, I'm not opposed to a similar approach, where we define
> an "alt" property that only applies to pseudo-elements and takes a
> <string> as its value.  The presence of 'alt' means that 'content' is
> decorative, and you should read 'alt' instead.  Absence means you
> should read 'content' as normal.

Just to be clear, you're talking about this, right?

 .expandable:before {
  content: "\25BA"; /* a.k.a. ► */
  alt: ""; /* aria-expanded="false" already in DOM, so this pseudo-element is decorative */
 }

And this:

 .new:before {
  content: "\2730";
  alt: attr(data-new); /* allows for localized content from the DOM, e.g. @data-new="New!" */
 }

I think that sounds okay, but have a few questions: 

1. Should the 'alt' property only apply when content has been replaced, or would it apply at all times?

 .foo:before { alt: "This text only available to assistive technology?"; }  /*e.g., no visibly rendered content for the pseudo-element. */

2. Would you also expect this to override content of native DOM elements, rather than just pseudo-elements?

 <foo style="alt:'baz';">bar</foo> <!-- Potentially confusing to authors. I'm not sure it'd be a good idea on actual elements. -->

Thanks,
James

PS. How should I track this request? File a bug? WG Issue?

Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 23:09:49 UTC