Re: title attributes on links

Hi Jon
you wrote:

"The HTML 5 Working Draft text" useful to provide a link citing, the text
is obsolete refer to Editor's Draft 30 May 2012
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/global-attributes.html#the-title-attribute

 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; on interactive content, it could be a label
> for, or instructions for, use of the element; and so forth. The value is
> text.
>

 in case of the footnote, the spec used to include advice on providing
footnotes using the title attribute i got it nixed [1] as it was
inappropriate given title's lack of keyboard support.


[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitle_annotations

On 31 May 2012 15:47, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> -----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
> case?
>
>
>
> 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)
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ramón.
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
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