W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2012

RE: title attributes on links

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:47:25 -0400
Message-ID: <09806fc57e8925076e9a8e097129e7a1@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Regarding the title attribute.  I've seen some content creation tools use
the title attribute on the canvas element to provide labels in addition to
use of ARIA roles on the element.  In my opinion this is not the correct
use of the title attribute.

The HTML 5 Working Draft text on the title attribute for elements that
don't have special semantics for the title indicates:

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; on a paragraph, it could be a
footnote or commentary on the text; on a citation, it could be further
information about the source; and so forth. The value is text.

While I agree that the title should only be used for advisory information
(not required information) – the examples cited above would appear to be
information that may not be duplicative and while advisory to the content
in context – information that users with disabilities have a right to
access and may be required for understanding of the document.  For example,
a footnote may be advisory to one reader but required for another reader to
understand the content.  Personally I would feel more comfortable that this
advisory information needed to be available in some other manner other than
the title attribute.   Later the same section goes on to indicate that user
agents are “encouraged” to expose title information via the keyboard but
aren’t required to.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ramón Corominas [mailto:listas@ramoncorominas.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:29 AM
To: Steve Faulkner
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: title attributes on links

Hi, Steve and all.

> what is the advantage of your example code over use of title  > in this

Maybe the only minor advantage would be that, without CSS, the <label> is
still there, but I was not really looking for "advantages", but consistency
(that is, not using the title to convey an information that IMO should be
conveyed through a <label>).

>> - Why the title is GOOD for form controls and BAD for images?


> As I have explained previouslyand linked to deatiled reasoning [2],  >
the title and alt have different semantics

I apologise, I didn't see that link, I thought you were pointing to the

H65 technique. Now I understand it much better.

>> - Is it anywhere in the spec that the title attribute can

>> convey the accessible name for form controls but not for images?


> In HTML5 [1] its says:

> title attribute: "on interactive content, it could be a label for,

> or instructions for, use of the element" it DOES NOT say that it

> can be used to provide a text alternative.

Ok, but what about this:

<input type="image" src="icon-search.png" title="Search" />

Is the title valid in this case? Is it an input or an image? According

to the spec, the only exception for <input> not being "interactive

content" is type="hidden". Shouldn't this case be added as other

"images" that require an alt?

> In HTML 4/xhtml


> an image MUST have an alt attribute otherwise its non conforming


> The alt attribute must be specified for the IMG and AREA elements.[4]

Why the <input type="image" /> doesn't require an alt? Is there a

reason? Just curious.

>> - If this rule applies only to form controls, why is it allowed

>> for them and not for other elements?


> the title is allowed on any element

I meant the rule that says that the title is enough to convey the

accessible name, not the rule about what elements can have a title (smile)

>> - If this rule applies to any element except images, why are

>> images an exception?


> As I explained previously alt has a distinct semantic. Thus

> authoring conformance requirements differ.

Ok, title conveys the accessible name for any element except for images

that are not inputs because there is another attribute for that purpose.

There is also an alt attribute for <input type="image" />, but in this

case you can use title to convey the accessible name, because... [fill

in the blank]

>> - Do you consider this behaviour is consistent?


> No.

Thank you for your answers! I'm learning a lot (smile)


Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 14:47:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:44 UTC