Re: [g-a-devel] HTML5 inert subtrees

[Alexander Surkov <surkov alexander gmail com>]

Hi. Possibly they word it this way to have some room for use cases
other than dialog element. Also AFAIK inert subtree don't have
implementations yet so the wording is not really final. In either case
I agree the spec sounds a bit controversial stating that no user
interaction events but same time says about optional support of text
selection which may involve user interactions. An important part of
that is I think the inert subtree is not operable for the user but
perceivable. So for example if you get a modal dialog popup up while
you played some audio then the audio may continue to play.

Probably the spec should be clarified before a11y mapping is made but
possibly a11y mapping can be flexible.

Please take your time, I bet nobody is in hurry and thank you for feedback.
Alexander.

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Piñeiro <apinheiro igalia com> wrote:
> On 09/27/2013 06:03 PM, Alexander Surkov wrote:
> > Hi.
>
> Hi,
>
> > HTML5 introduces inert subtrees [1] which are supposed to make a
> > portion of the document inactive (not interactive for the user):
> >
> > "When a node or one of its ancestors is inert, then the user agent
> > must act as if the element was absent for the purposes of targeting
> > user interaction events, may ignore the node for the purposes of text
> > search user interfaces (commonly known as "find in page"), and may
> > prevent the user from selecting text in that node."
>
> after a quick look, in my humble opinion, the definition of inert
> subtrees is confusing. From the previous paragraph, as is intended to be
> a element non interactive, or not relevant to the user, the obvious
> solution would not expose it. You suggested this as one of the options.
> But at the same time (as you also mentioned) it says "User agents should
> allow the user to override the restrictions on search and text
> selection, however.". So it seems that sometimes is not interactive and
> some other times not. From that sentence I understand a kind of implicit
> but not defined state. Or not. As I said for me is somewhat confusing
> after just a quick skim.
>
> In summary this seems a tricky question, and I personally would need
> some time to read the definition and the w3c bugzilla. Taking into
> account that is Friday afternoon, that will not happen today ;) If you
> don't mind I will take a look to this next week.
>
> Thanks for pinging us about this
>
> BR
>
> --
> Alejandro Piñeiro Iglesias