- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:23:23 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10485 Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-i | |ua.no --- Comment #3 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2010-09-07 20:23:22 --- Steve was was faster than me in reopening this bug. Hereby follows my justification for reopening: NOTE 1: you want <img> to default to no role. OK. Could make sense. NOTE 2: it seems like your thinking goes like this: a) you draw a line between "key part of the content" and "role=img". b) you draw line between @alt="<empty>" and "not key part" c) you draw a link between "semantically images" and role="img" - not sure that is smart. NOTE 3: HTML5 describes what should happen when @alt is not set: ]] if the src attribute is set and the alt attribute is not" The image might be a key part of the content, and there is no textual equivalent of the image available. In a conforming document, the absence of the alt attribute indicates that the image is a key part of the content but that a textual replacement for the image was not available when the image was generated. [ snip ] If the image has a title attribute whose value is not the empty string, then the value of that attribute is the caption information; abort these steps. If the image is the child of a figure element that has a child figcaption element, then the contents of the first such figcaption element are the caption information; abort these steps. [[ CONCLUSIVE REMARKS: ============== (1) Regarding a no-alt <img> inside a <figure> with a <figcaption>: (PS: I suppose what you have in mind, is when such an <img>, apart from <figcaption>, is the only child of <figure>, right?!?) If the ficaption of the figure element is used to caption an <img> with no-alt, then it seems counterproductive to say that such an <img> should default to role="img". Setting the role of an <img> to role="img", without at the same time pointing - via aria-labelledby - to a something that can serve as caption, will cause the AT to present the <img> as if it doesn't have any caption. Also, should the author set the @role of the <figure> to role="img", then there would suddenly be another element with role="img" inside the <figure role="img"> element. The only role that it would make sense for a no-alt <img> to default to when used inside a <figure> with a <figcaption>, would be "presentation". Ironically, this bug thus is related Laura's request that it should be valid to drop the @alt as long as the <img> has role="presentation" - bug 9214. (2) Regarding <img> with no-alt, used *outside* a <figure> with a <figcaption>: (2a) This usecase differs from the <figure> with <figcaption> usecase in that defaulting the <img> to role="presentation" would make it completely disappar from the AT user's attention. But still, for similar reasons as when used inside a <figure> with <figcaption>, it does not seem to make sense to default such an <img> to role="img", simply because setting the role of an element to "img" means that the user agent will only consider elements that are pointed to via @aria-labelledby as captitions for the image. It is not possible to point to the @title via aria-labelledby and @title is not automatically considered a label whenever an element is given role="img". (It is of course possible that I misread ARIA 1.0 or that ARIA could change would happens when an element gets role="img" ...) (2b) I agree that it could make sense to use the @title of such an image as replacement for the lacking @alt. However, effectively, this would mean treating the @title attribute a variant the @aria-label="*" attribute. But exactly therefore do I also believe that it should be considered an error to use @title on an <img> without @alt: if someone applies aria-label="*" to an <img>, then the proper thing would be to tell the author to use @alt instead. Likewise, when someone uses @title instead of @alt, the propoer thing would be to tell authors to use @alt instead. (2c) The way you now have specified things to work, we have the strange situation that, as long as the <img> has no @alt, then it has role="img". The purpose of @role is to help AT users, but there seems to be little help to gain from such a thing. Likewise, if the authors adds a non-empty @title, then it also remains role="img". But if the author adds an @alt or turns the @title attribute into an @alt attribute, then the <img> is suddenly not considered an role="img" element anymore. 3) The issues described in 1) and 2) means that it becomes quite difficult for the author to keep track of whenever the <img> defaults to role="img", and also difficult for the author to know what consequences role="img" is meant to have. -- 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 20:23:24 UTC