26172 2014-06-22 13:18:37 +0000 (ARIA table) should noscript have aria-hidden=true if scripting is disabled? 2014-07-16 11:24:16 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML5 spec unspecified Other other RESOLVED WONTFIX http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#sec-strong-native-semantics P3 normal LC 26171 1 faulkner.steve faulkner.steve faulkner.steve mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking robin surkov.alexander zcorpan public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 108194 0 faulkner.steve 2014-06-22 13:18:37 +0000 +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #26171 +++ Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/elements.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#table-aria-strong Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#table-aria-strong Referrer: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/ Comment: (ARIA table) should noscript have aria-hidden=true if scripting is disabled? Posted from: 90.230.218.37 by simonp@opera.com User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_9_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/35.0.1916.114 Safari/537.36 OPR/22.0.1471.40 (Edition Next) 108195 1 faulkner.steve 2014-06-22 13:23:21 +0000 > (ARIA table) should noscript have aria-hidden=true if scripting is disabled? Think you meant aria-hidden=false or aria-hidden=true if scripting is enabled? 108217 2 surkov.alexander 2014-06-23 14:12:01 +0000 I'd say script tag is not in area of interest of assistive technology, thus having aria-hidden on it does not make any sense. 108218 3 faulkner.steve 2014-06-23 14:29:23 +0000 (In reply to alexander surkov from comment #2) > I'd say script tag is not in area of interest of assistive technology, thus > having aria-hidden on it does not make any sense. its the <noscript>[1] element, the content of which is displayed if scripting is disabled/absent [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/scripting-1.html#the-noscript-element my thinking on it is that the noscript element has no semantics that need to be exposed to the user. It is not represented in the acc tree when JS enabled (nor is its content. When javascript is disabled its content is displayed on screen and in acc tree, but the <noscript> element itself is not (tested in FIREFOX/IE/Chrome) Requiring aria-hidden=true when scripting is enabled would require some browsers to do something different than they are doing now and is unnecessary. 108219 4 faulkner.steve 2014-06-23 14:36:04 +0000 (In reply to steve faulkner from comment #3) (tested in FIREFOX 29/IE 11/Chrome 35) windows 8.1 test file: http://stevefaulkner.github.io/html-mapping-tests/browser-tests/noscript.html checked using aViewer http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/aviewer 108242 5 surkov.alexander 2014-06-23 20:25:02 +0000 (In reply to steve faulkner from comment #3) > (In reply to alexander surkov from comment #2) > > I'd say script tag is not in area of interest of assistive technology, thus > > having aria-hidden on it does not make any sense. > > its the <noscript>[1] element, the content of which is displayed if > scripting is disabled/absent I misread you, noscript is different one > Requiring aria-hidden=true when scripting is enabled would require some > browsers to do something different than they are doing now and is > unnecessary. what the change could be? 108263 6 faulkner.steve 2014-06-24 10:21:58 +0000 (In reply to alexander surkov from comment #5) > > > Requiring aria-hidden=true when scripting is enabled would require some > > browsers to do something different than they are doing now and is > > unnecessary. > > what the change could be? for example, in IE <noscript> or its content is not included in acc tree when JS enabled. If aria-hidden=true is added: <noscript aria-hidden=true> IE adds the content to the tree with a state of invisible. test file http://stevefaulkner.github.io/html-mapping-tests/browser-tests/noscript.html 108285 7 surkov.alexander 2014-06-24 15:23:07 +0000 I see. Why do we need to care to add mapping in this case? 108286 8 faulkner.steve 2014-06-24 15:25:35 +0000 (In reply to alexander surkov from comment #7) > I see. Why do we need to care to add mapping in this case? we don't, closing bug.