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

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

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> ---
(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

Firefox is in good company when it uses the @title as the accessible name
*both* when @alt omitted as well as when @alt is empty, see my test page from
last year: 

     http://www.malform.no/testing/html5/img-role-vs-alt/

Under the circumstances tested in that page, there were almost zero difference
between empty @alt and omitted @alt. In the test page, explicitly adding
@role="img" to the <img>, made some browsers (the Webkit/Chrome based ones plus
Presto) look at the file name of the image even if @alt was empty.

> (what means
> AT shouldn't try to fix it).

I disagree that this is what it means. OK, if you define "to fix it" "looking
into the file name of the image in order to try to fix it", then I agree.
However, in my opinion to fetch the accessible name from @title is a repair
technique (or a try to fix it, as you call it), not? If we can agree on
terminology, then perhaps we agree. :-)

In my test page above, VoiceOver+Safari would attempt look at the filename even
when @title was present. But VoiceOver+Safari was also the only AT that would
look into the file name under *any* of the tested circumstances.

> 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).

What if the img element has empty @alt in combination with explicit role="img"?

   <img role="fileName" alt=""/>

> 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?

Btw, Steve seems to think that bug 12591 relates to this bug - and I agree, but
I have not concluded how ... ;-)

I am happy if the empty @alt and role="presentation" are separated. That is: I
am happy if empty @alt stops being promoted as synonymous with
role="presentation".

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

Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 12:42:57 UTC