- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 04:34:12 +0200
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, public-html-a11y@w3.org, jbrewer@w3.org, cyns@exchange.microsoft.com, faulkner.steve@gmail.com
Janina Sajka, Thu, 12 May 2011 01:34:27 +0000: > Richard Schwerdtfeger writes: >> So, Cynthia and I discussed this >> >> Although neither of us think that role="presentation" is not the equivalent >> of alt="" But others do: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0290 >> we are still left with the backward compatibility issue with >> alt="". Today's authors are required to use alt="" for HTML 4. >> >> So, we can live with role="presentation" on an image requiring alt to be >> supplied even though it requires additional (and I think unnecessary) work >> required by the author. > > OK. Preserving compatibility with HTML 4 is a good thing. +1 >> However, what should be not conforming is the >> following: >> >> <img alt="foo" role="presentation"> >> >> The reason being that role="presentation" will remove img from the >> accessibility tree pre the ARIA specification. If role="presentation" is >> applied to an image it MUST have alt="". We will flag this as an error in >> the Open Ajax Alliance rule sets. Do we want to create a bug against last >> call to fix this? >> > I say yes, file the bug. This is clearly illogical and should be > nonconformant. This means that if the @alt contains presentational ASCII art, then authors must use aria-hidden="true" instead of role=presentation in order to hide the image. Is this unproblematic? Another thing: Rich's proposal here is - to my mind - dependent on the view that empty alt equals role=presentation: conversely, non-empty alt can then not be presentational ... > Janina > >> Rich -- Leif H Silli
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 02:37:13 UTC