W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2012

Re: img@relaxed CP [was: CfC: Close ISSUE-206: meta-generator by Amicable Resolution]

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:23:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEhSh3cp0+Et17HOyvn2ZqQvsRa8BKFxRCaGfp3U1r9NQy19GQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had a discussion with john F last night in regards to how the
> presence of a generated image, without without an alt attribute but
> with the proposed attribute, should be exposed in accessibility APIs.

I don't get what's wrong with the existing behavior where images with
missing @alt are placed into the accessibility hierarchy either
without an accessible name or with some sort of repair? I think the
flag, should we add one, should only affect linter behaviour not user
agent/AT behaviour.

> I think that this is a side effect that could be ameliorated by use of
> a common, agreed, text string across browsers, so such images are
> consistently identified.

Sounds like a nightmare. I think we want to avoid that at all costs;
if we do decide that AT need to change their behavior based on this
flag it would be much better to go to ia2 and agree on an API level
flag that doesn't require polluting an existing field or syncing
localization efforts across products.

> AT could then provide further options to the
> user if they so choose, for example later versions of JAWS include an
> OCR feature.

Surely AT would want to give users the option to use such features for
images without either @alt or the flag?

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 08:24:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:29 UTC