W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: feedback requested on WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 document

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:13:48 +0200
Message-ID: <4A8A004C.3070104@malform.no>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen On 09-08-17 09.11:

> On Aug 17, 2009, at 00:11, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> 
>> I agree that it should not insert role="presentation" by default. 
>> However, since we both agree with Consensus in that <img> without 
>> @role defaults to role="img", it could insert role="img".
> 
> What problem would this solve?


Without role="img" someone evaluating the code would have less 
indication as to whether <img src="x" alt=""> was the the result 
of something that was just "drag'n dropped in", or whether the 
author actively chose to have it like that.

I am equally uncertain that an IMG with an empty alt="" should 
have role="presentation".

(Sounds like I agree with Jan Rickard's message. 
http://www.w3.org/mid/4A89618B.3090107@utoronto.ca )

 
>> Tools do not need to ask "Do you want to insert an <img>?" They could 
>> offer choice between IMG@role=presentation and normal IMG. Tools 
>> should not bug users about lack of alternative text unless the <img> 
>> has  a non-presentational role ...
> 
> What kind of markup and UI do you envision for the case where in a 
> future HTML5-compliant version of Dreamweaver, the user creates a new 
> document (File: New), drags an image file to the document from the 
> Finder and saves the document?

I guess Dreamweaver could assume that the image is supposed to be 
classified as role="img", though without inserting the role 
attribute. Images that are dropped the way you describe, probably 
most often aren't just presentational.

>> We should treat lack of @alt and empty alt="" as semantically identical.
> 
> That's not how existing client software behaves. Previously, it has been 
> stated on the list that it takes a long time to upgrade the software.

Steven has explained that an IMG without role="presentation" is 
exposed to the accessibility API even if it has alt="". From that 
POW, @alt and alt="" already are semantically equivalent.

>> The Consensus Documents goes in that direction when it states that it 
>> doesn't mater if an <IMG> with role="presentation" has an empty alt="" 
>> or no alt at all. But it goes slightly in the opposite direction when 
>> it recommends that validators should say that an <IMG> with an empty 
>> alt="" but not @role should automatically get a role="presentation".
> 
> My biggest concern with the proposed normative warning is that 
> role=presentation wouldn't be the path of least resistance for 
> dismissing the warning. Putting a space in the value of alt would be.

There are perhaps 3 options:

1. role="presentation" as function of alt="".
2. alt="" as function of choice @role value.
3. independent requirements

[ snip ]

-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 01:14:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT