- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:48:11 +0100
- To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org
On 13 Sep 2010, at 13:42, Steven Faulkner wrote: > No, because an inline <img> element is being used in the other example, in this example it's not. The elephant is still in the room! From an end-user perspective what is the difference between these two cases? In both scenarios, there's an image button with a text equivalent. That one case uses "img" and another CSS is, from their perspective, a mere implementation detail. If we're saying users need access to UI images, how do users get access to that CSS generated image? > 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. Thank you - that's an interesting use case. In an editing scenario, might not the user also want access to the following presentational "img", even though ARIA excludes it from the accessible tree? <button contenteditable="true"> <img role="presentation" src="cross.gif" alt=""> Wrong </button> ARIA may need some additions to cover this use case. However, I'm not sure editable DOM trees are a safe guide to how normal DOM trees should be mapped to the accessible tree. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 07:48:47 UTC