[Bug 10480] add role="presentation" on the ASCII fish image


--- Comment #3 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  2010-08-29 03:06:13 ---
Hej från Oslo! :-)

(In reply to comment #2)
> Doesn't the role="img" mean that:
> A) The contents of the element represents an image and thus AT shouldn't read it?

role="img" and <img> are different things. An element with role="img" contains
(or links to, for eample in the form of an aria-describedby link) some kind of
description of the image (be it a <img> image, an <object> image, or -- as in
this case -- an ASCII image).  The textual content of the element with
role="img", must be presented to the reader by the AT.

> B) That the element, at least from an AT perspective, no longer semantically is
> a    figure but rather an image, thus the rules for how it's captioned by
>    <figcaption> no longer applies?

Please read about the landmark role "img" in ARIA 1.0

Again you must keep your tongue in balanse: what do you mean by "is a figure"?
What does it mean to be a figure? There are many kinds of figures (now I am
threading Shelley's subject...). Images in a book can be considered figures, if
they have captions. HTML5 of course has a very broad intepreation of figure.

However, there is for instance no ARIA role known as "figure". If it has no
default role, then it cannot stop being a figure ... -- from AT's point of

Here we are indeed touching one of the problems with <figure>: it provides a
little bit less than what I think many think that it provides. At least from an
accessibility angle. Have a look at bug 10484, which tries to make sure that
<figure> is as simple to use as possible when it comes to accessibility. 

If <figure> had a default role, _then_ we could talk abotu "no longer
semantically be a figure", perhaps. I don't know what that role  eventually
should be: 'group', 'note', 'region'?  
Possible roles: http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#section

Think we must live with a broad/loose figure element.

> I'm admittedly very unsure about B. It's never been very clear to me how it's
> intended that ARIA should change semantics. Pointers more than welcome.

There were some pointers above - don't know if they help.

ARIA, in my view, never changes semantics. Well, except from AT user's point of
view. The point with ARIA is to make the existing semantics clear. ARIA clearly
uses a broad definition of image (or role="img"). However, that to me makes
sense.  But it is going to be a problem to get authors to keep the different
meaning of e.g. role="img", <img> and image. ;-)

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Sunday, 29 August 2010 03:06:15 UTC