- From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:05:32 +0100
- To: "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:42:17 +0100, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: >> # decorative images should not be allowed as content of a <figure> >> element as the HTML5 semantics imply that the content of the figure >> should be meaningful, so no <img alt=""> >> # when a figure has a <figcaption> the content of the <figcaption> >> should act as the accessible name for the image(s) inside the <figure> >> if the image(s) do not have a text alternative provided using the alt >> attribute. Sounds sensible to me. But this couls be misinterpreted as contradictory. For example. <figure> <img src=ceo.jpg alt=""> <figcaption>Brian Slick, CEO of Blammo Corp, leveraging a synergy</figcaption> </figure> seems entirely accessible (?) and fits in with your first bullet. But a designer might be troubled by the first bullet which says no <img alt=""> and write <figure> <img src=ceo.jpg alt="Brian Slick, CEO of Blammo Corp, leveraging a synergy"> <figcaption>Brian Slick, CEO of Blammo Corp, leveraging a synergy</figcaption> </figure> which is "too much accessibility". -- Hang loose and stay groovy, Bruce Lawson Web Evangelist www.opera.com (work) www.brucelawson.co.uk (personal) www.twitter.com/brucel Pre-order my HTML5 book www.introducinghtml5.com
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 14:27:41 UTC