W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: aside and figure elements

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:42:01 -0500
Message-ID: <4C0D3D79.4030308@burningbird.net>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Shelley Powers, Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:17:19 -0500:
>   
>> Laura Carlson wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi Shelley,
>>>       
>   [...]
>   
>>> Shelley wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Disagree, 100%.
>>>>         
>
> Though I am not yet in agreement with Steve, I think, Shelley, that you 
> are wrong here. See below. 
>
>   
>>>> The figure element can have a dozen images, two tables, a code block or
>>>> two, paragraphs, and div elements. The figcaption names all of this, not
>>>> just the img element (s).
>>>>
>>>> The alt attribute must be provided regardless of figcaption, as figure
>>>> is defined now.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Good catch Shelley. Okay, how about restricting it to:
>>>
>>> When a figure has an image as sole content use a  <figcaption> as the
>>> accessible name for the image. But in scenarios of multiple images in
>>> a figure element alt rules apply.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>       
>
> I think we need to work out in much more detail how we envision 
> <figure> to be used. It is clear that we all have quite different ideas.
>
>   
>>>   
>>>       
>> It could work, but the problem with all these rules and constraints 
>> is that people will be confused, and will, most likely, use all of 
>> the elements incorrectly.
>>
>> I would say that img should be treated the same, regardless of 
>> whether it's in a figure element or not. It should have a non-empty 
>> alt tag. We hope people would have enough commonsense not to use 
>> figure for a decorative image.
>>     
>
> You yourself have quoted the example from WAI-ARIA (because you 
> recommend using @role and aria-* rather than <figure>), where there is 
> a caption *and* the image has role="presentation". Sorry, but I quote 
> it again:
>
> <div role="img" aria-labelledby="caption">
>   <img src="example.png" role="presentation" alt="">
>   <p id="caption">A visible text caption labeling the image.</p>
> </div>
>
> So even if the one - or all - <img> elements of a <figure> are defined 
> to have role="presentation", that doesn't mean that the image as such 
> is presentational. 
>   


My example in my counter-proposal was the following:

<div role="img" aria-labelledby="caption">
    <img src="example.png" alt="Some descriptive text">
    <p id="caption">A visible text caption labeling the image.</p>
  </div>

Which I believed to be equivalent to figure and figcaption.

I don't believe I referenced role="presentation".

And the role=presentation has some interesting semantics that make its 
use with figure an interesting challenge. If you attach it to figure, 
the figure element isn't mapped to the accessibility API, but supposedly 
the contents could be.

I would think using figure with role="presentation" is opening a can of 
worms with potentially conflicting semantics.

Shelley
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 19:49:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:18 UTC