This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#sec-strong-native-semantics Currently, <script>, <style>, <head> (etc) have gotten aria-hidden="true" as a strong, native semantic. As consequence, if an author makes - via CSS - any of these elements visible, AT users will not get the content since the aria-hidden="true" semantics would not be removed by a change of the CSS. Also, moving thes elements from the strong to the weak table would not change much since, even then, users would not get the content unless the author made sure to change the default aria-hidden status from "true" to "false". I would argue that nothing is gained by giving script, style, head etc aria-hideen="true" as a default value. Rather, I think HTML5 should just considere these elements as hidden, in the traditional display:none meaning of the word. As small detail for <head> is that it contains <title>, and since the aria-hidden state applies to the children as well, this woiuld in theory hide the title element. One could ask for the usecase for making script/style/head visible. And yes, it will probably not be done very often. But the fact that is is so seldom done also means that there is no problem to solve - thuse we don't need to say that these elements should have aria-hidden="true" as default.
(In reply to Leif Halvard Silli from comment #0) > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#sec-strong-native- > semantics > > Currently, <script>, <style>, <head> (etc) have gotten aria-hidden="true" as > a strong, native semantic. > > As consequence, if an author makes - via CSS - any of these elements > visible, AT users will not get the content since the aria-hidden="true" > semantics would not be removed by a change of the CSS. > > Also, moving thes elements from the strong to the weak table would not > change much since, even then, users would not get the content unless the > author made sure to change the default aria-hidden status from "true" to > "false". > > I would argue that nothing is gained by giving script, style, head etc > aria-hideen="true" as a default value. Rather, I think HTML5 should just > considere these elements as hidden, in the traditional display:none meaning > of the word. > > As small detail for <head> is that it contains <title>, and since the > aria-hidden state applies to the children as well, this woiuld in theory > hide the title element. > > One could ask for the usecase for making script/style/head visible. And yes, > it will probably not be done very often. But the fact that is is so seldom > done also means that there is no problem to solve - thuse we don't need to > say that these elements should have aria-hidden="true" as default. Hi leif, I agree and had flagged this previously (can't find where at the moment), browsers do not show this content by default to users and already handle that effectively in the acc layer. Also note that aria-hidden removes content from the acc tree, setting display:block on one of the elements you listed will no add the content back in the acc layer, so it will be visible, anyway have removed aria-hidden mapping, if edit is acceptable please close the bug
Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/w3c/html https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/6f2c9346857d93a44b9e12b32dba2559c666dcc7 remove aria-hidden implicit mapping resolves bug 23384
I did not check very thoroghly - just assuming you fixed it.
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Accepted Change Description: see comment 2 Rationale: The mappings for these elements are already defined with more specific information in the AAPI guide http://rawgithub.com/w3c/html-api-map/master/index.html --
(In reply to steve faulkner from comment #4) > EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are > satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. > If > you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, > please > reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML > Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest > title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue > yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: > > http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html > > Status: Accepted > Change Description: see comment 2 > Rationale: The mappings for these elements are already defined with more > specific information in the AAPI guide > http://rawgithub.com/w3c/html-api-map/master/index.html > > -- Note: by default these elements and their contents are simply not included in the accessibility tree, requiring that they map to aria-hidden=true would result in some implementers (e.g. firefox) having to include them the tree and mark them as hidden.
Commit pushed to CR at https://github.com/w3c/html https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/6f2c9346857d93a44b9e12b32dba2559c666dcc7 remove aria-hidden implicit mapping