- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 15:00:55 +0000
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+ri+VmC5ZCRjuJ3w2TYcezGnk8SaFNQP3iNvUhXF-13_J=E7Q@mail.gmail.com>
thanks Jukka! am in broad agreement with your suggestions, I will provide a more suitable image example for the alt example section and post it for review. -- Regards SteveF HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> On 9 December 2013 12:23, Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>wrote: > 2013-12-09 13:36, Steve Faulkner wrote: > >> HI all, have added some advice to html 5.1 text alternatives for <img> >> elements when they are used as image maps >> >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded- >> content-0.html#image-maps-0 >> >> At your leisure, feedback welcome and appreciated. >> > > The addition seems to be a copy of the example at > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded- > content-0.html#image-map > except that alt="Four shapes are available: a red hollow box, a green > circle, a blue triangle, and a yellow four-pointed star" has been replaced > by the shorter alt="Four shapes are available:". This is an improvement, > since color is not part of shape. But wouldn't it be better to improve the > example where it is now and just link to from the lengthy discussion of the > alt attribute? > > Besides, the example would still be odd. The alt attributes of the area > elements mention colors, and the first one does not really describe the > pattern: alt="Red box." should be alt="Square with a square hollow in its > center", if the intent is to specify the shapes. (I don't see any good > reason for the periods at the ends of alt attributes here. They don't cause > harm I suppose, except that they make the reader wonder whether I should > really use periods there, and why.) > > The example as a whole is rather artificial. It is difficult to imagine a > meaningful context where you would present such a choice of shapes. And it > would be more accessible (and simpler to code, hence safer against > authoring mistakes) if presented simply as four image links. But, > admittedly, it is difficult to find good examples of image maps. How about > a geographic map? Say, a map of Australia (relatively simple, with not too > many states), acting simply as an "active map" where you can click on any > state to visit a page about that state. The coords attributes would have > many numbers, but that would not really add much to the structural > complexity. > > The added text before the copy of the example says: "If an|img < > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded- > content-0.html#the-img-element>|element has a|usemap|attribute which > references a|map <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded- > content-0.html#the-map-element>|element containing|area < > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded- > content-0.html#the-area-element>|elements that have|href|attributes, > the|img <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded- > content-0.html#the-img-element>|is considered to be interactive content. > In such cases, provide a text alternative that acts as a group label for > the linked regions of the image." The end of the sentence is then repeated > after the image, followed by the text "The|alt|attribute on each of > the|area <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded- > content-0.html#the-area-element>|elements provides a label for each > linked region". The formulation could probably be made simpler (more > accessible), e.g.: > > If an img element has a usemap attribute and is thus associated with an > image map, the alt attribute value describes the image as a whole in the > context. This means that it acts as a caption for the collection of the alt > attributes of the area elements, so that all these attributes together can > be used as a captioned menu of choices, in a situation where the image is > not seen. > > (I would prefer "caption", or maybe "heading", to "label" here, to avoid > confusion with labels of controls defined via <label> markup.) > > -- > Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > > >
Received on Monday, 9 December 2013 15:02:04 UTC