W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > January 2014

RE: Alt text should identify image class when relevant

From: <contact@thecodeplayground.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:48:43 +0000
Message-Id: <34f21b9872ac747072b2757f80618a4f6425df3b@ygwq-tnyp.accessdomain.com>
To: "John Foliot" <john@foliot.ca>, "Steve Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org>, redux@splintered.co.uk
Cc: "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
 
Hi, all

I've been following the discussion and I can't help saying that
there's something that bothers me in trying to make the "alt"
attribute explain the link *and* the image at the same time. First
because, as far as I understand, the "alt" attribute should be a
textual alternative to the image (or explain it in some sense), and
the "title" attribute was supposed to be added to explain the link.
Then we'd have the text of the image plus an explanation of what the
link would do:

The weak point here is exactly the fact that the "title" attribute is
not usefull for AT users, or keyboard users or touch-screen users...
and then we have to "force" things a little bit, by using "alt" for
other things then giving a textual alternative.
It won't be a problem, of course, if explaining a link by the "alt"
attribute would only help screen-reader users or users not loading
images.

I'd whish the title attribute could be taken more into account, even
by AT users.

I believe that, to tell the user or not that the image is a logo is
not very relevant, specially if it appears in a  tag, what would imply
the level of information.

Cheers,
Angela Ricci
Invited Expert

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Foliot" 
To:"Steve Faulkner" , "HTMLWG WG" 
Cc:"HTML Accessibility Task Force" 
Sent:Mon, 27 Jan 2014 08:47:26 -0800
Subject:RE: Alt text should identify image class when relevant

	Hi Steve,

	 

	I think that the bug has a somewhat legitimate issue, but I also
agree with your assessment. For example, if all we had was:

	 

	      

	 

	…it would be correct (note that I personally am a huge fan of the
prefixing of alt values, such as the “logo:” here, but also note
that consistency is trump)

	 

	However, if that same image was now also a link:

	 

	     

	 

	…then the initial alt text would be wrong: the link *DOES NOT TAKE
ME TO THE LOGO* (a common occurrence with CMS tools such as
WordPress), but rather the W3C site. I would reject the bug as
incorrect.

	 

	While I agree that the image is still the logo, the fact that it is
also a link to the W3C site is over-riding the fact that it is a logo.
In many ways, this is also an editorial question, which is very hard
to answer as different organizations often have their own internal
editorial standards. 

	 

	If the content author really wanted to convey that this is also a
logo (i.e. declare 2 facts about this page element) then they *MIGHT*
also consider the slightly wordier:  as a possible option (thoughts?)

	 

	JF

	 

	 

	FROM: Steve Faulkner [mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com] 
SENT: Monday, January 27, 2014 2:00 AM
TO: HTMLWG WG
CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force
SUBJECT: bug: Alt text should identify image class when relevant

	 

	Hi all, 

	any thoughts on this bug would be appreciated:

BUG 23207 [2] - Alt text should identify image class when relevant

	The particular case that is being called out is when there is an logo
that is the sole content of a link, and thus the alt text is the link
text:

	code example[1]

	  

	  

	the bug reporter is suggesting that because the image is a logo this
information should be included in the text.

My thinking is that as the primary purpose of the image in the context
it is being used is as link content, the alt text should be a brief
description of the link target only.

[1]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content-0.html#a-link-or-button-containing-nothing-but-an-image
[4]

	 

	any thoughts?

--

Regards

SteveF

	HTML 5.1 [5]

	 

Links:
------
[1] http://w3.org
[2] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23207
[3] http://w3.org
[4]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content-0.html#a-link-or-button-containing-nothing-but-an-image
[5] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/
Received on Monday, 27 January 2014 18:54:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:37 UTC