This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
+++ 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)
> (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?
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.
(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.
(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
(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?
(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
I see. Why do we need to care to add mapping in this case?
(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.