[Bug 21565] Should it be an error to use @longdesc on presentational images? And/Or should it _affect_ the role of the image?

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21565

steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |faulkner.steve@gmail.com

--- Comment #7 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I don't think the presence or absence of a longdesc should be used as a
> determinant of whether an image is presentational.
> 
> Use case for longdesc on presentational images:
> Stock photography is often included in marketing content (such as home
> pages, press releases, etc). It is typically decorative, and should have
> alt="" in many cases. But adding an accurate longdesc allows the photo
> provider to make their content more discoverable - the legitimate sense of
> advertising. It also makes it possible to get a better sense of the design
> aesthetic without having seen the image, which is useful to a range of
> different people.
> 
> I therefore think that having a longdesc on an image with alt="" should not
> be a validation error.

if you think that the current mapping of alt="" to role=presentation is
incorrect then suggest filing a bug against html spec. The current definition
results in the img being removed from the accessibility tree regardless of the
presence of longdesc. In the case of <img alt="" longdesc="description.html">
what would be needed is for the role=presentation not to be applied to the
<img>

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 4 April 2013 11:15:45 UTC