W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > June 2010

Re: aside and figure elements

From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:23:32 +0100
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
To: "John Foliot" <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <op.vdxa1i1wh8on37@bruce-pc>
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 10:29:07 +0100, Laura Carlson
<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:


>
> Another question, John, do you find the definitions of aside and
> figure too close in meaning? Should the definitions be changed? If so
> how? The definitions of the aside and figure sound almost identical,
> except that figure has a caption. Do you consider the overlapping
> definitions problematic? Developers will tend to confuse the two
> elements and use them incorrectly.

They're especially similar where figure has no caption.

I wrote to the WG on this in July last year
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-July/020710.html

Main difference, in such a case, seems to me to be that aside affects  
document outline, as it's sectioning content, while figure doesn't.

The accessibility implications of this I leave to cleverer people that me  
(=Foliot)

-- 
Hang loose and stay groovy,

Bruce Lawson
Web Evangelist
www.opera.com (work)
www.brucelawson.co.uk (personal)
www.twitter.com/brucel
Pre-order my HTML5 book www.introducinghtml5.com
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 09:24:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:12 GMT