[Bug 9214] Allow role="presentation" img as conformance Criteria

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9214





--- Comment #26 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  2010-09-07 16:19:14 ---
(In reply to comment #24)
> (In reply to comment #22)

> > Thus, i suppose you want @role="presentation" to  make <img> elements which
> > lack  any ue of @alt, as valid.
> 
> Yes, per WAI CG's Doc:
> 
> <quote>
> 
> NOTE: These recommendations assume that ARIA features referenced in this
> document are included in HTML 5.
> 
>    1. <img> is only valid when at least one of the following is true:
>           * @alt is present (empty or non-empty) OR
>           * @aria-labelledby is present (non-empty only) OR
>           * the <img> is located within a <figure> that has a non-empty
> <legend> OR
>           * @role="presentation"
>       NOTE: The intent here is twofold.
>          1. to allow different methods to be used for providing short text
> alternatives (e.g. ALT or LABELLEDBY or LEGEND)

Strictly speaking, the first intent is not met: HTML5 does not say that you can
skip using @alt, as long as @aria-labelledby is present. However, I have not
seen that you have raised any issue/bug about this.

>          2. to note that short text alternatives are not needed for content
> that is "presentational" as defined by ARIA

The second intent is met.


>    2. That
>           * the proper use of @role="presentation" be taken from ARIA 1.0
>           * and that an <img> without a @role attribute is assumed to be the
> equivalent of <IMG @role="img"> (and would follow the rules in #1 above)
> 
>       NOTE: 'Presentation' should not be defined to be broader than what is
> defined by ARIA

I think *you* are stretching ARIA: Your change proposal says about
@role="presentation" that: “It is specified and implemented to do what alt=""
is specified to do.”
However, ARIA does not say that role="presentation" does what an empty  @alt=""
does. And empty @alt does somet of what role="presentation" does. But
role="presentation" does not affect how the <img> element is presented to users
which do not use AT.


>    3. For cases in which it is appropriate for user agents to ignore the
> presence of an image (e.g. when the image is used for decoration, for
> formatting, or when the image is invisible), one or both of the following may
> be used:
>           * @role="presentation"
>           * @alt="" (also see (4))
> 
>       INTENT: That it is VALID to use either ROLE and/or ALT="" to mark
> "presentational" content.

This intent is met: you *can* have text inside the @alt attridbute *and*
simultaneously use role="presenation".  I believe that *this* is the *real*
intent that the Consensus Document was thinking about. (Perhaps you or someone
could ask some of those who authored the document?)

 The only thing that you can't do is that you can't completely ommit the @alt
attribute. But I do not understand why you want that to be valid.  And I am not
certain that the Consensus Document wants it either.

>    4. alt="" WITHOUT an accompanying role="presentation" triggers a
> non-critical validator warning recommending use of role="presentation" (but
> @alt="" remains technically valid)
> 
>       INTENT: To encourage the use of role=presentation - by encouraging (but
> not requiring) its use even when alt="" is used.

This is *not* met. However, you haven't raised any issue/bug about it either,
or have you?

[ snip ]

-- 
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 Tuesday, 7 September 2010 16:19:16 UTC