- From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:04:40 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On 17/08/2009 10:56, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Aug 17, 2009, at 2:40 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: > >> On 17/08/2009 10:05, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>>> In situations like: >>>> >>>> <a href="#"><img src="delete.png" alt=""></a> >>>> >>>> It's useful to AT for the "img" to be exposed and to be able to access >>>> "src" attributes for the purpose of providing a substitute for proper >>>> alternative text. >>> >>> If that's so, then wouldn't it be better for authors to use alt="" >>> instead of role="presentation", so that AT can decide whether it needs >>> to expose the image anyway? >> >> I don't think role="presentation" is appropriate in that case. It's >> not a presentational image. > > I don't think alt="" is appropriate either, for the same reason. Agreed. > But you are right that such usage is common nonetheless. > The specific proposal on the table was as follows: > > - Every time the validator sees alt="" without role="presentation", it > should issue a warning advising the author to add role="presentation". > > I believe this would lead to the kind of misuse that you are concerned > about. Indeed. > Do you think this kind of warning is a good idea? That warning, not really. But I think if the checker is offering "warnings" (I'd prefer "tips"), a message providing advice for different situations that includes coverage of "role='presentation'" would be a good idea. -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 15:05:24 UTC