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 15:05:32 +0100
To: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vdxnq8pnh8on37@bruce-pc>
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:42:17 +0100, Laura Carlson  
<laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:

>> # decorative images should not be allowed as content of a <figure>
>> element as the HTML5 semantics imply that the content of the figure
>> should be meaningful, so no <img alt="">
>> # when a figure has a <figcaption> the content of the <figcaption>
>> should act as the accessible name for the image(s) inside the <figure>
>> if the image(s) do not have a text alternative provided using the alt
>> attribute.

Sounds sensible to me. But this couls be misinterpreted as contradictory.  
For example.

<figure>
<img src=ceo.jpg alt="">
<figcaption>Brian Slick, CEO of Blammo Corp, leveraging a  
synergy</figcaption>
</figure>

seems entirely accessible (?) and fits in with your first bullet. But a  
designer might be troubled by the first bullet which says no <img alt="">  
and write


<figure>
<img src=ceo.jpg alt="Brian Slick, CEO of Blammo Corp, leveraging a  
synergy">
<figcaption>Brian Slick, CEO of Blammo Corp, leveraging a  
synergy</figcaption>
</figure>

which is "too much accessibility".


-- 
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 14:27:42 GMT

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