Open mozilla-apprentice opened 3 years ago
CC @MReschenberg - do you know if the accepted-proposal here matches our existing behavior, or do we need a bug?
the implementation-affecting part of the proposal is:
"Define impact of visibility: hidden similar to display: contents (shouldn't strip necessary a11y information from the tree)."
New text at https://drafts.csswg.org/css-display-3/#visibility (though the "drafts" server is having reliability issues). Relevant snippet of the commit is here: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/7be289b94ff79ca434d9fec0a107027f38088380#diff-121b43a1fc112b6bdb941630b37e35dba8c25b511fd8a6e9a2e22f5b889d1f20R1185-R1196
My paraphrase/rewording of the new requirement (if I'm understanding it correctly): If a visibility:hidden
element (or several such nested elements) have some visibility:visible
descendant, then the spec now requires that the hidden
element(s) must exist in the accessibility tree, to serve as the container for the visible thing (for proper nesting etc.)
I can imagine that maybe we already do this, but I don't know our a11y code well enough to be sure.
I'm investigating this, I know we do something similar for display:contents right now, but not sure if we're covering this case too. Will let ya know!
A resolution was made for csswg-drafts/#6123.
For the Accessibility API visibility:visible within visibility:hidden is problematic
Discussion.
To file a bug automatically for these resolutions, add the bug label to the issue.
If no bug is needed, the issue can be closed.