W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2007

Re: @title's relation to accessibility

From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 06:33:12 +0200
Message-Id: <p06240679c302893d9663@[192.168.0.101]>
To: public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org

At 14:19 -0500 UTC, on 2007-09-03, Jon Barnett wrote:

> On 9/3/07, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Ah, thanks. Yes, I can see how such use of @title can be helpful in some
>> browsing situations. But personally I would think such markup can be useful
>> for all browsing situations, not just for "accessibility".
>
> Using proper, meaningful markup in a way that is useful for all
> browsing situations is the definition of "accessibility".

Ah, so this is just another instance of the same old miscommunication then.

No:
<http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Glossary>
<http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AccessibilityConsensus#head-39c6fa6184f1d64a65c29f8dfd614fe4638f8c4d>
<http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/DefinitionAccessibility>

We have so far had at least 6 or 7 threads where people talked alongside each
other until they finally discovered that they assign different meanings to
"accessibility". Let's put an end to that. What you're talking about is
called "universality" here. Sorry ;)

> Remember that "accessibility" doesn't just mean "readable to blind people".

Within the W3C space, it does. I dislike it, but I think we need to be
realistic about it.

The alternative is that as a group we decide that "accesibility" means what
it means in the rest of the world. I would behappy with that. But either way,
we need to agree on and stick to *one* meaning. (And as long as noone voices
disagreement with those wiki entries, we can only assume that to mean there
is agreement.)

[...]

> If say that @title exists to make content more meaningful in certain
> situations or all situations, then yes, it has something to do with
> <del>accessibility</del><ins>universality</ins>.

To be honest, I don't even see the universality aspect of @title. Making use
of an element or attribute to specify its meaning is 'just' about semantics
isn't it? If you're talking about "meaning", then <p> too is about
universality, because it too defines meaning. Is <p> about universality? (I
can somewhat vaguely see your argument, but as I hope my reference to <p>
shows, I wonder what meaning the term "universality" still can have. You seem
to be using it as a synonym for semantics/meaning. Is that really useful?)

> Beyond that, I don't know what point you're trying to
> make in this thread (maybe you're using a more specific definition of
> the word "accessibility"?)

Well, that aside ;) I'm trying to find out what truth there is in the claim
that @title has anything to do with universality or accessiblity. It seems
important, because [1] authors mix up @alt and @title, and [2] the HTML5
draft now says that UAs must present @alt and @title differently and [3] the
HTML5 draft now says that @alt is no longer required, making authors wonder
again/more about @title...

So there appears to be confusion, and we should try to ensure that the spec
ends that confusion.

So far, IIRC, the only universality aspect of @title that I think actually
exists is as an attribute to iframe.


-- 
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 04:43:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:07 GMT