Position absolute not always removed from flow?

Bergamot scribed:

Ed Jay wrote:
Bergamot scribed:
Ben C wrote:
On 2008-04-30, Bergamot <bergamot (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:

There are some potentially serious accessibility
problems any time you use display:none.

Like what?

Like screen readers don't see anything at all, the same as when image
loading is disabled. Ditto with visibility:hidden

I always use display:none when I don't want the reader to see anything. I
don't understand your point.

It's a few years old, as is the updated results it links to, but AFAIK
things haven't changed.
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page...aderVisibility

Thanks. I read it. Are we suggesting that for accessibility reasons,
everything should always be 'visible,' even content that is event triggered?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Ed Jay wrote:

Bergamot scribed:

It's a few years old, as is the updated results it links to, but AFAIK
things haven't changed.
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page...aderVisibility

Thanks. I read it. Are we suggesting that for accessibility reasons,
everything should always be 'visible,' even content that is event triggered?

No, that's not what it means. It does mean that display:none and
visibility:hidden have side effects you might not have considered. So
start considering them and act accordingly.

--
Berg

On 2008-05-01, Bergamot <bergamot (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:

Ed Jay wrote:
Bergamot scribed:

It's a few years old, as is the updated results it links to, but AFAIK
things haven't changed.
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page...aderVisibility

Thanks. I read it. Are we suggesting that for accessibility reasons,
everything should always be 'visible,' even content that is event triggered?

No, that's not what it means. It does mean that display:none and
visibility:hidden have side effects you might not have considered. So
start considering them and act accordingly.

I think we expected the side-effect that display: none would mean
inaudible as well as invisible, and I think it should.

The practical problem is just that screen readers are crap-- ignoring
aural stylesheets and using the IE DOM according to that link!

The options seem to be: actually test in all the crap screen readers
until you find something that works, because it doesn't look like logic
well help much there; or stick to the specifications because the work
that really needs to be done here is for someone to produce a better
screen reader.

On 1 May, 05:07, Bergamot <berga... (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:

No, that's not what it means. It does mean that display:none and
visibility:hidden have side effects you might not have considered.

What _is_ the "side effect" of display:none;?

"Not being displayed" isn't a side effect!

Andy Dingley wrote:

On 1 May, 05:07, Bergamot <berga... (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:

No, that's not what it means. It does mean that display:none and
visibility:hidden have side effects you might not have considered.

What _is_ the "side effect" of display:none;?

"Not being displayed" isn't a side effect!

In the case of image replacement methods, which was the example that
started this subthread, plain text was positioned out of sight off left
so a background image would be seen in its stead.

The suggestion was to use display:none for the text instead.

A screen reader will still be able to "see" the text in the first
method, but not the second. That is the kind of side effect I was
referring to.


--
Berg