- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:01:21 +0200
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Laura Carlson, Mon, 7 Jun 2010 08:42:17 -0500: > Hi Steve, > > Thank you very much for your thoughtful and comprehensive responses. > >> we haven't discussed the <figure> element. >> >> my take on the figure element is that the >> # <figure> should be mapped to accessibility APIs as a grouping >> element like <p> or <div> >> # 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. >> #if the image(s) inside the figure have alt then the <figcaption> >> content could act as the accessible description unless for example the >> figcaption is referenced by an aria labelledby on an img: > > This makes sense. > > Have you thought about tables inside of a figure? When a table element > is the only content in a figure element other than the figcaption, > the spec says that the caption element should be omitted in favor of > the figcaption do you think this is specified correctly? It seems to > me to make sense. Should it be extended to mention grouping multiple > tables in a figure? (figcaption + caption +caption +caption scenario). > Or do you consider this would not be needed? Just to be clear: I have to disagree with you, Laura. These things needs to be discussed further. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 15:01:56 UTC