W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2015

Re: [css-content] Request for note regarding selection, search, and accessibility of generated content

From: Michiel Bijl <michiel@agosto.nl>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:54:50 +0100
Cc: Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>, "DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org)" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5CD5C804-9083-4CC6-9FC3-5BF70E9DB3CD@agosto.nl>
To: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>
I agree that generated content can be useful. Take css counters for example, you can only visualise these through pseudo-elements. Wouldn’t it be better to get the bugs fixed  than to forbid meaningful content in pseudo-elements? I realise that this is easier said than done.

Not to say that allowing strings in the content property wasn't a mistake.


> On 11 Nov 2015, at 14:48, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote:
> I hadn’t seen Joanie’s note before, but it strikes me as a very difficult request. There are a lot of generated strings available that are helpful for navigation. CSS gives us a way to generate elements like running headers and footers, so that the reader has context. This is useful to all readers. If there is any way that we can make this work in the accessible world, it will be a boon for accessibility. Calls to footnotes and figures, page numbers, list numbers, etc. are all generated as well. I would like to think automated numbering is something that AT can explore, at least in contained structures.
> It is a worth reviewing the specifics of the current draft of  Generated Content and Paged Media spec [1] to see that this has very little to do with decorative elements. 
> So, even though it seems like this is a dead end, I think we need to figure out a way to make these elements accessible. I don’t think putting a note in the spec will stop people from using these elements for meaningful content, and these are extremely useful tools. Do we have to write a CSS AAM? File bugs?
> [1] https://drafts.csswg.org/css-gcpm/ <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-gcpm/>
> Tzviya Siegman
> Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead
> Wiley
> 201-748-6884
> tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>
> From: Michiel Bijl [mailto:michiel@agosto.nl] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 4:57 AM
> To: Joanmarie Diggs
> Cc: www-style@w3.org; W3C WAI Protocols & Formats
> Subject: Re: [css-content] Request for note regarding selection, search, and accessibility of generated content
> I don’t understand the question regarding VoiceOver in the mail you link to. Could you explain? Maybe I can test it.
> —Michiel
> On 29 Oct 2015, at 03:23, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com <mailto:jdiggs@igalia.com>> wrote:
> Hi all.
> I was chatting with Fantasai today about some long-standing bugs in user
> agents in the areas of selection, search, and accessibility of generated
> content. Given that these bugs seem to be present in most (all?) the
> user agents [1] and apparently quite difficult to solve, would you be
> willing to add a note to your spec encouraging authors to only use
> generated content for things that are truly decorative?
> Thanks in advance for considering this!
> --joanie (PF/APA)
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2014Nov/0094.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2014Nov/0094.html>

Received on Wednesday, 11 November 2015 13:56:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:58 UTC