[Bug 10489] Use or @role is not mentioned as single time in the draft

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10489


Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-i
                   |                            |ua.no




--- Comment #1 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  2010-08-29 02:28:00 ---
Concrete issues- Example 9.1:

---------
Example code 1:
<figure>  
<img src="1100670787_6a7c664aef.jpg" alt="Lola the cat sitting under an
umbrella in the bath tub."> 
 <figcaption>Lola prefers a bath to a shower.</figcaption>  
</figure>  
---------

<figure> defaults to "no-role". So what is it that <figcaption> is captioning
in those examples? It would make sense to use <figure role="img">.

The same goes for Example 9.2. Example 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 seem problematic – I
quote the code of 10.1:

----
<figure>   
<img src="webcam1.jpg" alt="Sopwith house weather cam. Taken on the 21/04/10 at
11:51 and 34 seconds. 
In the foreground are the safety rails on the flat part of the roof. Nearby
there are low rise industrial buildings, 
beyond are blocks of flats. In the distance there's a church steeple."
aria-describedby="s1">  
<figcaption id="s1">View from the top of Sopwith house, looking towards north
Kingston.</figcaption>
<p>This image is updated every hour.</p>
<p>View the <a
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/4296?area=Kingston">
latest weather details</a> for Kingston upon Thames.</p>   
</figure>  
-----

Comment: There is a programmatic link between <img> and an <figcaption>.  The
@alt must be considered a kind of caption here. Whereas <figcaption>, and
<figcaption> alone (not the following <p> elements!!) are the long description.
THen what do the<p> elements do? What is their relation - to what? This is how
I would have done it:

===
<figure role="img" aria-labelledby="s1" >   
<img src="webcam1.jpg" alt="Sopwith house weather cam. Taken on the 21/04/10 at
11:51 and 34 seconds. 
In the foreground are the safety rails on the flat part of the roof. Nearby
there are low rise industrial buildings, 
beyond are blocks of flats. In the distance there's a church steeple." >  
<figcaption id="s1">View from the top of Sopwith house, looking towards north
Kingston.</figcaption>
<p>This image is updated every hour.</p>
<p>View the <a
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/4296?area=Kingston">
latest weather details</a> for Kingston upon Thames.</p>   
</figure>  
===

The advantages to this approach are

  a) the entire <figure> is considered an "img" — in accordance with ARIA 1.0
("An img can contain captions and descriptive text, as well as multiple image
files that when viewed together give the impression of a single image.")
Perhaps another role is possible. However, if that is the case, then why have
<figcaption> been linked to the <img> element? If the <figure> does not have
role="img", then it is a little bit odd to draw a strong link between <img> and
<figcaption>.
  b) <figcaption> is a caption of the entire figure — as it should be and as it
is meant to be. This also makes it a caption of the <img> element. If you want
to emphasize that <figcaptoin> is the caption of the <figure>; then you should
use aria-labelledby the way I used it above.

If the intent is to have a caption _just_ for the <img>, then it would make
sense to either use another element as caption. Or to nest a <figure>,
containing only the <img> and its caption,  inside the outer figure element.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Sunday, 29 August 2010 02:28:02 UTC