W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teamb@w3.org > August 2006

Fw: descriptive titles

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 17:24:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB5130FA5EB@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
I have title attributes on the brain having recently compiled the review of comments relating to the use of title in links!

Agreed, 2.4.3 is about elements, not attributes.  WCAG 2.0 uses the term “title” in many places.  I almost wish we had used a more neutral term like “handle” that had less HTML prejudice associated with it.  As John observes, it the difference between elements and attributes does not impact my other comments.  Further, I should have written:

The html specification is well understood to require that title values be meaningful

I too am comfortable that the differentiation and characterization are human, but not machine, testable.  We have Level 1 criteria, notably the sufficiency of text alternatives, that have the same aspect.

John’s reply to me was obviously meant for the list.

-----Original Message-----
From:	John M Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu]
Sent:	Sat 8/26/2006 4:17 PM
To:	Bailey, Bruce
Subject:	RE: descriptive titles

Bruce writes:
3)  It is a given that features be used correctly.  I believe the html specification is well understood to require that title attributes be meaningful
Interesting. There may be situations where the title *attribute* is covered  under this SC (for example, in SMIL content), but in most cases the title *element* will be used to specify the title of the Web unit.
I don't think that affects Bruce's other comments, especially #2, about corollary changes to 2.4.5. Here I'd say that if we want to retain a L3 requirement, then we'd have to make the change Bruce suggests (minus the now-superfluous comma). Alternatively, the whole thing might move up to L2 since headings, titles, and labels do form a sort of coherent package.
I take it that a descriptive title is one that characterizes the content and differentiates the Web unit in question from others in its set.
 The characterization is human- but not machine-testable; the same probably applies to the differentiation as well.
Does this make sense?

"Good design is accessible design"
John Slatin, Director
Accessibility Institute University of Texas at Austin 1 University station Stop G9600
Austin, TX 78712, USA
Phone +1.512.495.4288 Fax +1.512.495.4524 cell +1.512.784.7533
email jslatin@austin.utexas.edu
Received on Saturday, 26 August 2006 21:25:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:15:24 UTC