W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2012

Re: [whatwg] alt and title attribute exception

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:25:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vn4Cf4SvJcBgATOBcEPUgOroxxpN2yjOcixoekR64FdWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>
Apologies.
the last sentence should have read:

The last point is another reason why making the title attribute on images
(without alt) conforming,

IS NOT good for users,

is that the semantics, for all users, are ambiguous.

regards
Stevef

On 31 July 2012 13:03, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Philip,
>
> the spec currently says of the alt attribute [1]:
>
> the value of the alt attribute provides equivalent content for those who
>> cannot process images or who have image loading disabled (i.e. it is the
>> img element's fallback content).
>>
>
> The alt attribute does not represent advisory information. User agents
>> must not present the contents of the alt attribute in the same way as
>> content of the title attribute.
>>
>
> And this is how it is treated in modern graphical browsers, it is not
> displayed unless images are disabled or not available and it is used as the
> accessible name for the image in accessibility APIs whether the image is
> available or not. Unlike the title attribute which is available in some
> browsers when a user hovers their mouse over an image with a title
> attribute.
>
> the spec currently says of the title attribute [2]:
>
> The title attribute represents advisory information for the element, such
>> as would be appropriate for a tooltip. On a link, this could be the title
>> or a description of the target resource; on an image, it could be the image
>> credit or a description of the image.
>>
>
> title has differing semantics to alt. In situations where alt it not
> present on an img but title is, in webkit based browsers the title
> attribute content is displayed on mouse hover and is also displayed in
> place of the image when images are disabled or not available. This
> implementation appears to contradict the must requirement in the spec.
>
> User agents must not present the contents of the alt attribute in the
>> same way as content of the title attribute.
>>
>
> As there is no way visual distinction between title content being
> displayed and of alt content in this case.
>
>
> you wrote:
>
> >but I'm confused -- is falling back to title a Good Thing that people
> want browsers to implement, or is it just a quirk that some legacy browser
> had?
>
> Given that there is a semantic distinction in the spec between what alt
> content is and what title content is and a swathe of normative
> requirements/advice based on this distinction it would appear unwise to
> promote the use of title as fallback without providing normative
> requirements on provision of a method to distinguish between the two.
>
> *Note:* in terms of the accessible name calculation for an img element,
> if the image does not have aria-label or an aria-labelledby or an alt
> attribute, but does have a title attribute, then the title attribute is
> used as the accessible name. From an accessibility API perspective, no
> distinction is indicated as to the source of the accessible name (apart
> from in the Mac AX API).
>
> The last point is another reason why making the title attribute on images
> (without alt) conforming is that the semantics, for all users, are
> ambiguous.
>
> [1]
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/embedded-content-1.html#attr-img-alt
> [2]
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/elements.html#the-title-attribute
>
> regards
> Stevef
>
>
> On 31 July 2012 12:12, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:48:52 +0200, Chaals McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:18:37 +0200, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  AFAICT there's also no way to read the alt attribute on Opera Mobile.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You mean title, right?
>>>
>>> (alt can be read by turning of image loading - although the famous bug
>>> http://a11ybugs.org/bug-3.php (I know a few versions of it in Opera's
>>> BTS) doesn't help).
>>>
>>
>> I really did mean the alt attribute, I didn't try turning images off,
>> just long-clicking... oops.
>>
>> I suppose that if mobile browsers fix Bug 3 *and* fall back to the title
>> attribute in the absence of an alt attribute then it would be OK to use
>> title instead of alt, but I'm confused -- is falling back to title a Good
>> Thing that people want browsers to implement, or is it just a quirk that
>> some legacy browser had?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Philip Jägenstedt
>> Core Developer
>> Opera Software
>>
>
>
> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 12:26:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:09 GMT