W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2010

[Bug 10481] Default role of <IMG> should be "img"

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 09:18:35 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Ov5BL-0004so-58@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #50 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>  2010-09-13 09:18:34 ---
(In reply to comment #49)
> The purpose of role="presentation" is to negate an implicit role. 
> Thus, if it is supposed to make sense that alt=<the empty string> is treateed
> as a synonym for role="presentation", then <img> *must* have an implicit role
> as well. If <img> can't have an implicit role, then it is meaningless to say
> that alt="<the empty string>" negates the <img>s implicit role:
> ]] presentation (role)
>    An element whose implicit native role semantics will not be mapped to the
> accessibility API. [[
> [*] http://www.w3.org/WAI.new/PF/aria/complete#presentation
> We must hover clarify the effect of role="presentation" on <img>s with a
> non-empty @alt: It is seems possible to read ARIA as saying that
> role="presentation" should not cause the _alt text_ to become inaccessible for
> AT users. It should only cause the <img> to loose its image role. See bug 10614
> against ARIA.
> That said: AT doesn't announce "image" for all img elements with role="img".
> And as Steven has said [*], they aren't required to do so either: 
> [*] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Sep/0337
> For example, for a link containing nothing but the image [*], then VoiceOver
> doesn't announce anything but the link and the @alt text - that the link is an
> image, is not announced.
> [*]
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/embedded-content-1#a-link-or-button-containing-nothing-but-the-image
> It is, however, not clear to me whether the question of making known to the
> user that the image it is an image, should be completely left over to the AT,
> such as in the case with a link with an image. Or if role="presentation"
> should/may be used as a tool for making sure that that user isn't disturbed
> with such role information. Clearly, HTML5 could possibly open the door for
> more "microformats" to be defined where the image-ness is not announced. E.g.
> if a <header> elemen contains nothing but an <img>, then it is probably a logo
> image, and it shouldn't be necessary to announce that it is an image.
> Provided that it is correct that role="presentation" should not make the @alt
> text inaccessible to AT users, then some guidelines somewhere, for when it is
> acceptable to give an <img> role="presentation" would be useful. Of course,
> alt="<the-emtpy-string>" is obvious. But also, images which only contain
> characters - e.g. when the image is a text and the @alt just contains that text
> -  seem like a candiate for when role="presentation" is a SHOULD.  Such a thing
> seems consistent with ARIA, which says: 
> ]] The intended use is when an element is used to change the look of the page
> but does not have all the functional, interactive, or structural relevance
> implied by the element type [[
> [*] http://www.w3.org/WAI.new/PF/aria/complete#presentation

i asked a question about use of role="presentaion" on <img> on the wai-xtech
list last month:

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 Monday, 13 September 2010 09:18:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:24 UTC