Re: img@relaxed CP [was: CfC: Close ISSUE-206: meta-generator by Amicable Resolution]

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I doubt a user agent would factor the presence of an attribute such as
>>@relaxed into its decision to indicate or not indicate the presence of
>>a particular image without a provided text alternative. In particular,
>>I doubt user agents which provide configuration for indicating or not
>>indicating such images (such as VoiceOver which allows users to ask it
>>to announce all images or only images "with descriptions") would
>>distinguish <img> and <img relaxed> as distinct categories in their
>>configuration UI.
>
> I don't presume to make such judgements without first having defined a
> proposed mechanism and sought feedback from end users and the
> accessibility engineers implementing such a mechanism in user agents.

Well, it's up to you if you feel they're likely enough to use the flag
to spend your cycles and theirs to see if they want the flag mentioned
in your mapping guide :)

You might want to ask them at the same time if there's additional
information that could help them make decisions about whether to alert
a user to an image's presence, such as URL, intrinsic (as opposed to
rendered) size, transparency, color count, and repetition statistics,
that they might want surfaced.

IAccessibleImage (from IA2) doesn't have much in the way of relevant fields:

http://accessibility.linuxfoundation.org/a11yspecs/ia2/docs/html/interface_i_accessible_image-members.html

But maybe AT in practice just pulls out information from the DOM and
CSSOM via references in the IA2 object. Or maybe their algorithms for
deciding whether to alert users to images or not aren't all that
sophisticated yet. Or maybe they'd prefer browsers did the work. Don't
see anything about this grepping the NVDA codebase for example.

--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

Received on Saturday, 4 August 2012 19:14:28 UTC