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

Re: Default role of <IMG> should be "img"

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:48:11 +0100
Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <BA8BBEC8-4B2D-4E8A-B43F-DEF6210A6FD8@googlemail.com>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
On 13 Sep 2010, at 13:42, Steven Faulkner wrote:
> No, because an inline <img> element is being used in the other example, in this example it's not.

The elephant is still in the room!

From an end-user perspective what is the difference between these two cases? In both scenarios, there's an image button with a text equivalent. That one case uses "img" and another CSS is, from their perspective, a mere implementation detail. If we're saying users need access to UI images, how do users get access to that CSS generated image?

> An example where it would be useful:
>  
> 
> <button contenteditable="true"><img src="cross.gif" alt="wrong" width="94" height="85" border="0" ></button>
>  
> In IE for example when contenteditable="true" it is recognised as a graphic by JAWS and the img object information is provided to the user.
>  
> Any html editor that provides a preview mode or wysywig editor.

Thank you - that's an interesting use case.

In an editing scenario, might not the user also want access to the following presentational "img", even though ARIA excludes it from the accessible tree?

   <button contenteditable="true">
       <img role="presentation" src="cross.gif" alt="">
       Wrong
   </button>

ARIA may need some additions to cover this use case.

However, I'm not sure editable DOM trees are a safe guide to how normal DOM trees should be mapped to the accessible tree.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 07:48:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:14 UTC