Re: Default role of <IMG> should be "img"

hi ben,
>Sorry, but from my perspective they are extremely different questions,
regardless of whom you asked.
not responding further to this as its getting us nowehere.

you wrote:

"
Are you saying that given the input:
<button class="edit">Edit</button>

  button.edit { content: url(pencil.png); }

The accessible tree (in ARIA terms) should be:

- button - name: Edit
-- image - name: Edit"

No, because an inline <img> element is being used in the other example, in
this example it's not.

you wrote:

"So … given the markup:

  <button><img src="pencil.png" alt="Edit"></button>

So does any AT under any configuration announce the image in this scenario?"
 I have no idea, and i don't have the time to do such exhaustuive testing.

"Do any users find that useful, and if so, what for?"

An example where it would be useful:


<button contenteditable="true"><img src="cross.gif" alt="wrong" width="94"
height="85" border="0" ></button>

In IE for example when contenteditable="true" it is recognised as a graphic
by JAWS and the img object information is provided to the user.

Any html editor that provides a preview mode or wysywig editor.

regards
Stevef


On 13 September 2010 12:25, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <
bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 13 Sep 2010, at 11:04, Steven Faulkner wrote:
> > "Better questions for getting screen reader user views on UI images might
> be:..."
> >
> > yes many better questions could be asked, but I am fairly certain the
> screen reader users who responded (included a screen reader developer, yahoo
> accessibility evangelist, a developer working on drupal accessibility),
>  understood the intent of the question.
>
> Sorry, but from my perspective they are extremely different questions,
> regardless of whom you asked.
>
> > "<button><img alt="Edit" src="pencil.png"></button>"
> > "because the button text would be represented as just button text in the
> accessibility tree rather than as an image with a text alternative?"
> >
> > NO I would argue for the current behaviour:
> > The accessible tree (can be viewed using firefox DOM inspector) looks
> like this:
> >
> > - pushbutton > name > bottle
> > -- graphic > name > bottle
> > When an AT such as JAWS encounters the button announces the button role
> and its accessble name value (from the image alt text) it does not announce
> the image. BUT the image is not removed by the browser from the accessible
> tree.
>
> Because of the way you snipped my message, it's somewhat difficult to
> determine what you're replying to.
>
> Are you saying that given the input:
>
>   <button class="edit">Edit</button>
>
>   button.edit { content: url(pencil.png); }
>
> The accessible tree (in ARIA terms) should be:
>
> - button - name: Edit
> -- image - name: Edit
>
> rather than:
>
> - button - name: Edit
>
> (I realise ARIA doesn't specify what to do about replaced content yet, I'm
> just asking what you think it should specify.)
>
> > When an AT such as JAWS encounters the button announces the button role
> and its
> > accessble name value (from the image alt text) it does not announce the
> image.
> > BUT the image is not removed by the browser from the accessible tree.
>
> So … given the markup:
>
>   <button><img src="pencil.png" alt="Edit"></button>
>
> So does any AT under any configuration announce the image in this scenario?
> Do any users find that useful, and if so, what for?
>
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis




-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html