W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > November 2012

[Bug 20048] remove decorative image code example

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 20:11:38 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-20048-2486-GpAztUCmDK@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20048

Léonie Watson <tink@tink.co.uk> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tink@tink.co.uk

--- Comment #5 from Léonie Watson <tink@tink.co.uk> ---
"It's is considered by at least one person that it conflicts with WCAG advice:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Nov/0107.html"

To some extent this bug hinges on the term "decorative". WCAG 2.0 F39 for SC
1.1.1 explains that an image for decoration, spacing or other purpose that has
no relevance to the meaning of the document, should have a nul alt attribute.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/F39

The third example in the image description extension references a decorative
image. The use case being discussed is slightly different though. It refers to
images that are not intrinsic to the meaning of the document, but which may
still be of interest to users.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Nov/0115.html

    F39 is apparently intended to apply to images that have no meaning
whatsoever. For example dividing bars, rounded corners etc. It doesn't seem to
consider those images that add to the experience of the page, without being a
pre-requisite for understanding the meaning of it. For example scenic
landscapes, stock photography etc.

We're effectively talking about a different classification of image, those that
convey some sense of emotion or atmosphere.
http://tink.co.uk/2011/06/text-descriptions-emotion-rich-images/

On this basis longdesc is a good mechanism for providing that information, but
populating the alt attribute makes sense anyway. Without the alt value to
provide a short description of the image, it would take a lot of running around
for screen reader users to decide whether they wanted to know anything else
about it.


It's worth keeping the example but modifying it to include an alt value.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 23 November 2012 20:11:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 November 2012 20:11:39 GMT