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

[Bug 10485] The img element with non-empty alt should default to the img aria role

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:36:02 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Ot5pi-0000dK-4K@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10485





--- Comment #4 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  2010-09-07 21:36:01 ---
(In reply to comment #3)

> CONCLUSIVE REMARKS:
> ==============

> (1) Regarding a no-alt <img> inside a <figure> with a <figcaption>: 

> Also, should the author set the @role of the <figure> to role="img",
> then there would suddenly be another element with role="img" inside the <figure
> role="img"> element.

I was wrong, here: Adding role="img" to <figure> would automatically make its
children presentational.
(See: http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/complete#childrenArePresentational )

> The only role that it would make sense for a no-alt <img> to default to when
> used inside a <figure> with a <figcaption>, would be "presentation".
> Ironically, this bug thus is related  Laura's request that it should be valid
> to drop the @alt as long as the <img> has role="presentation" - bug 9214.

I take back the above as well: it makes sense to treat such an <img> as
role="img". 

 What doesn't make sense, however, is to treat such an <img> as an role="img"
element, by default, whereas an <img> with a proper @alt is not, by default, an
role="img" element.

PS: Ian, we do not discuss role="image", but role="img": Something which
semanticaly isn't an image, could still semantically be an "img" ...

-- 
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 Tuesday, 7 September 2010 21:36:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:13 UTC