W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2013

Re: current definition of <figure> in HTML is problematic

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:59:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vk4oKi2RYig99urLq5dQLfTWpdvJuOCdMGzF0zonm-P=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Gunderson, Jon R" <jongund@illinois.edu>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Jon,

the img should wherever possible have an alt attribute with content that as
usual provides the text alternative.

The img should not have a null alt. In the case where no alt is provided
the figcaption at least provides an explicitly associated description. The
figcaption element (in IA2 has a caption role).

regards
Steve



On 24 January 2013 15:45, Gunderson, Jon R <jongund@illinois.edu> wrote:

>  Steve,****
>
> ** **
>
> In the example you give of using figure element, what is the role of the
> “alt” attribute of the img element, should it be empty or should it reflect
> the content of the figcaption element?****
>
> ** **
>
> <figure>
> <img src=”image.png” alt=””>
>
> <figcaption>Image text equivalent</figcaption>
> </figure>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Or****
>
> ** **
>
> <figure>
> <img src=”image.png” alt=”Image text equivalent”>
>
> <figcaption>Image text equivalent</figcaption>
> </figure>
>
> ****
>
> Jon****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Steve Faulkner [mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:44 AM
> *To:* HTMLWG WG
> *Subject:* current definition of <figure> in HTML is problematic****
>
> ** **
>
> I think the current definition [4] of  the figure element leads to
> developers thinking that they cannot use it to caption an image or images
> that are ket parts of the content:
>
> "The element can thus be used to annotate illustrations, diagrams, photos,
> code listings, etc, that are referred to from the main content of the
> document, but that could, without affecting the flow of the document, be
> moved away from that primary content, e.g. to the side of the page, to
> dedicated pages, or to an appendix."
>
> For example, in this current discussion
> http://html5doctor.com/html5-simplequiz-7-pinterest/
>
> developers are making statements such as [1]:
>
> "I don’t think figure is appropriate, because it’s for things that can be
> taken out of flow and moved to an appendix, and the pins on the page are
> the whole point of the flow"
>
> "<figure>s are intended to contain accessory content, not the main
> substance of the section in question. The spec says they can be moved away
> from the main flow of the document without affecting the document’s
> meaning. I therefore don’t think it’s appropriate to use them for the main
> image and description here." [2]
>
> And highly influential developers such as Jeremy Keith appear to agree [3]
>
> There appears to be no good reason why a page containing an image that is
> the main content of the page (example:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/46646759@N03/8408567494/in/explore-2013-01-23)
> should not be captioned using the following pattern, if fact it should be
> encouraged.
>
> <figure>
> <img>
>
> <figcaption> caption text</figcaption>
> </figure>
>
>
> Suggest modifying the definition to remove the unecessary constraint on
> figure use.
>
> [1] http://html5doctor.com/html5-simplequiz-7-pinterest/#comment-30251
> [2] http://html5doctor.com/html5-simplequiz-7-pinterest/#comment-30262
> [3] http://html5doctor.com/html5-simplequiz-7-pinterest/#comment-30255
> [4]
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/grouping-content.html#the-figure-element
>
>
>  <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>****
>



<http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 16:00:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 January 2013 16:00:12 GMT