Thread Subject: Re: Pausing
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Aug 20 2007 11:45 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: None
- Previous message in thread: Jared Smith: "Re: Pausing"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I think you are echoing my point. The "visual aspect" is what gets made
invisible, usually through .css or through odd graphics effects. What
I'm after is that the "hiding" is programmatically determinable--e.g.
Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 12:44 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Pausing
On 8/20/07, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
> Is there a better term than hiding that would make it clear that what
> is meant is making the item invisible both visually and also that it
> would be marked so that state is programmatically determinable?
If the moving content is decorative, the non-text content provision
requires that it be hidden to AT anyways, so I don't think this is
really an issue. I believe this provision applies only to the visual
properties of the content (thus my beef with the more expansive word
'auto-updating' which I've commented on a few times already).
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: Jared Smith: "Re: Pausing"