[Bug 22930] img with empty alt don't need to have own item

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22930

--- Comment #2 from steve faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> some background: Firefox exposes image accessible regardless @alt attribute
> so it doesn't equivalent to role="presentation". the only difference is if
> the image has empty @alt attribute and accessible name is not specified
> otherwise (like @title attribute) then accessible name is null (what means
> AT shouldn't try to fix it).
> 
> that's why I think we don't need to have two items. Probably all we need is
> to mention this feature in img name computation part like if @alt is
> presented and empty value and name is not provided otherwise then name is
> null (AT shouldn't try to repair it).
> 
> or alternatively we can add an item like:
> 
> IA2/MSAA column:
> Name: if @alt attribute is presented but empty and no name provided
> otherwise then name is NULL, return value is S_FALSE.
> 
> Sounds good? Which one do you like more?

Hi alex, I don't mind merging the 2 always good to simplify. Note the HTML5
spec requires that an img with empty alt has a role=presentation [1] but this
requirement is at risk for CR as no browsers have implemented it. I am unsure
of the appropriateness of it anyway as the use of alt="" as a flag to indicate
an img should be ignored by AT is widely supported already and it has the
advantage of the img still being in the acc tree so AT could expose to users
via preference if desired.



[1]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#sec-strong-native-semantics

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 09:02:30 UTC