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

[Bug 9214] Allow role="presentation" on img

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:16:54 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1NuG9O-00055k-2j@wiggum.w3.org>

--- Comment #8 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  2010-03-24 02:16:53 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> I don't understand why we would make:
>    <img role="presentation" src="img">
> ...valid (and implying alt=""), when we already have:
>    <img alt="" src="img">
> ...which is valid, means the same thing, and implies role="presentation". What
> is the benefit?

Assuming that we agree that both <img alt="" src="img"> and <img ALT="" alt=""
src="img"> would be correct, then I agree that it should not be recommended to
not supply alt="<emptystring>" in this case. 

I think Steve has been saying that it should never be an error to use role="*"
- and in that context we dicussed use cases for when another role than the one
the spec currently require for <hn> elements, was correct. (I had to agree with
him that other roles than "heading" could bee needed). Thus to say that the
presence of role="presentation" loosens the requirement to supply a correct alt
attribute, is not how I see it.

The consensus document that Laura cites seems to treat the issue differently:
It creates a link between role="presentation"  and a looser requirements w.r.t.
to supplying a correct alt="". I guess I have to say that where I stand today,
I disagree with the consensus document here.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 02:16:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:09 UTC