Re: figcaption NOT an replacement for alt in HTML5

Hi all,

figure and figcaption is a feature to group content and provide a caption
for the grouped content
figure provides the programmatic grouping, thus the default role=group
figcaption = caption thus the default role=caption

previously HTML did not have such a structure, now it does, what is needed
is people to bug UA vendors to implement the semantics so what is obvious
to some people (i.e here is an image with a caption) is conveyed to all.

I have filed various bugs against browsers in this regard. getting SR
vendors to implement stuff is harder, but that does not mean it should not
be done.

below is an example of markup for the use case we are dealing with (i.e.
caption but no image) that does work in at least 2 browser/UA combinations:
JAWS with IE or Firefox, talkback with chrome. It does not work yet with
other AT as they have not implemented support for the ARIA role/properties
(i.e. these are bugs in ATs)

<figure role="group"  aria-label="image with caption:">
<figcaption>W3C logo</figcaption>
<img src="w3c_home.png" width="72" height="48">
</figure>

test page:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/377471/tests/figure-aria-label.html


I think the above is clearly a case where the figcaption text is a caption
and should be identified as such. And would go further to say that the
caption text is an adequate text alternative.

FYI i wrote an article a few years back about figure/.figcaption and its
semantics
http://blog.paciellogroup.com/2011/08/html5-accessibility-chops-the-figure-and-figcaption-elements/


--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 17 January 2014 10:26, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:

> David MacDonald wrote:
> "But it does not appear in any way that they are asking us to create the
> same exception. WCAG is about making websites more accessible, the wording
> that they have chosen in HTML5 makes it clear that they are discouraging it
> is less accessible. "
>
> Hi David,
>
> That brings me back to the original question then, should there be a WCAG
> technique for it?
>
> The existence of such a technique for SC 1.1.1 would appear to create the
> same exception in WCAG.
>
> I think it would be better placed under 1.3.1 as a grouping mechanism.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Alastair
>
>