- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:36:19 -0500
- To: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Jun 26, 2007, at 3:32 AM, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > 2007/6/26, Robert Burns: >> >> <object >> data="foo.mpeg" >> alt="My kitten fluffy playing with yarn." >> title="fluffy playing with yarn" >> > Fluffy, still only a few inches tall, is playing with a red ball >> of yarn that has to 3 times her size. She has just fallen on her back >> and it looks like the ball of yarn is crushing her. But she's really >> just having fun. </object> > > What would be the difference between @title and @alt then? > > -- > Thomas Broyer > I'm not sure. I included title because it may suffice for what @alt is currently used for for the elements with full fallback content. I'm raising this because I don't know the answer. I'd like to hear from others with more experience with accessibility UAs and authoring and such. Again, my suggestion is that we need to add a <still> (or otherwise named element) to include with the other new embedded content elements that handles fallback properly for still images. By adding such an element we can then deprecate or drop (whatever term we want to use) <img> and <embed> in favor of <object>, <still> and the newly added embedded content elements. Along with dropping those @alt and @longdesc would also be dropped, because they would no longer be necessary for the other more modern embedded content elements. Again, this means that <embed> and <img> would continue to work in the existing browsers and other UAs, but we would be marking a future path for UAs and authors to use new and better embedded content elements that better handle fallback content. The only question that remains in my mind is whether any need for the @alt attribute is completely eliminated. Part of the reason @alt is necessary is because @longdesc (which was added to deal with the <img> element's inability to handle fallback content within its tags). So perhaps @title deals adequately with any abbreviated / auxiliary / alternate text for all the embedded content elements that provide rich fallback content. I'd like to hear what others think about the issue. My example was meant to draw some attention to that. I also drafted it to demonstrate how the fallback content would probably not be appropriate for a <caption> or <legend> element. However, we should keep in mind that there are several subtly different mechanisms for all sorts of text related to non-text media: the <legend> / <caption> element, the @title attribute, the @alt attribute the element's fallback contents and the description and keywords metadata from the media files. These sources of information do not (and should not) duplicate one another. Fallback content (as in the example) is not the same thing that belongs in the <caption> / <legend>. However, the @title, @alt and <caption> / <legend> may be very closely related and potentially redundant (considering such we should be warn authors to avoided such redundancy). Take care, Rob
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 12:36:31 UTC