W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > May 2011

[Bug 12590] @role=presentation for IMG should also require that @title is empty

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 13:57:55 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1QJnRj-0002oJ-Fi@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12590

--- Comment #4 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-05-10 13:57:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> 
> > Note as well, that according to the Fangs, the JAWS emulator, then not only
> > VoiceOver, but JAWS too will treat those images as non-presentational. 
> > Fangs: http://sourceforge.net/projects/fangs
> 
> the reason why voiceover does what it does is that the default mapping has not
> been implemented
> try this and check with the mac accessibility inspector
> 
> <img src="x" role="presentation" title="poot">

That is: they don't read the @title in that case? Do you have a list of AT
which behave different from VoiceOver? 

I have checked your table with 'Screen reader software support for the TITLE
attribute' from 2005, and for some reason, for the IMG element it says "not
tested":
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/articles/WE05/forms.html

> The img gets removed from the accessibility tree. 
> 
> fangs does not emulate JAWS faithfully in many aspects.
> try it WITH JAWS, you will get the same result when role=presentation is used
> the element is removed form the accessibility tree no information about the img
> is passed to a11y APIs

According to Fangs. then @title is read as the text of the img. So Fangs is
wrong then, you say, when it gives this impression of JAWS?  However, the
presentation of what Jaws does is not complete merely by looking at a single
IMG: What about the example from the Apple web side inside comment #0 ? Does
Jaws read that @title as the link text of that link? 

> if you don't think this is the correct behaviour, file a bug against wai-aria
> 1.0

Can you point to the fragment in WAI-ARIA19 which it would be relevant to file
a bug against?

I am reluctant to file anything against WAI-ARIA10, for the following 3
reasons:

* Firstly, I don't see how I can file a bug against WAI-ARIA 1.0 when the issue
is HTML5. 
* Secondly, I filed this bug because you asked me to  - I have already filed
another bug that relates to ARIA implementation in HTML
(http://www.w3.org/TR/html-aapi/)  - see bug 12587. 
* Thirdly, one of the previous editors of WAI-ARIA, Richard, agrees with me
that an IMG with a non-empty @title in combo with a empty @alt *is*
non-presentational:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0042  Though he is
very clear in that message, I have also given my intepretation of what he said,
upfront, and he has not taken his statement back or refined it:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0047

Frankly, it is difficult to  read what you above and *not* think about your
attitude towards @title in general: It would fit very well into your picture of
how things should be, if an empty @alt would make the @title inaccessible.

Note that this bug is not about what is *valid*. It is about what implicit
*role* an image with a non-empty @title in combination with an empt @alt does
get.

-- 
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, 10 May 2011 13:58:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:38 GMT