- From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 11:18:24 +0100
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
hi laura, we haven't discussed the <figure> element. my take on the figure element is that the # <figure> should be mapped to accessibility APIs as a grouping element like <p> or <div> # decorative images should not be allowed as content of a <figure> element as the HTML5 semantics imply that the content of the figure should be meaningful, so no <img alt=""> # when a figure has a <figcaption> the content of the <figcaption> should act as the accessible name for the image(s) inside the <figure> if the image(s) do not have a text alternative provided using the alt attribute. #if the image(s) inside the figure have alt then the <figcaption> content could act as the accessible description unless for example the figcaption is referenced by an aria labelledby on an img: In this case the accessible name is "Dog on a bike. Chester can ride without using his paws." <figure> <img id="img1" alt="dog on a bike." aria-labelledby="img1 cap"> <figcaption id="cap"> Chester can ride without using his paws.</figcaption> </figure> In this case the accessible name is "Dog on a bike." and the accessible description is "Chester can ride without using his paws." <figure> <img id="img1" alt="dog on a bike." aria-labelledby="img1 cap"> <figcaption id="cap"> Chester can ride without using his paws.</figcaption> </figure> In this case the accessible name is "Chester can ride without using his paws." which I think is an unsatisfactory text alternative as it does not provide adequate information about what is depicted visually in the image. <figure> <img > <figcaption >Chester can ride without using his paws.</figcaption> </figure> while this would be better, but it is still currently problematic from a practical point of view as no browsers or AT provide the programmatic mapping between the <figcaption> and the img. So the accessible name provided through an accessibility API is "" <figure> <img > <figcaption>Chester the dog riding a bike without using his paws.</figcaption> </figure> Using aria-labelledby is better in this case because for users of AT/browsers that support aria-labelledby the programmatic association will be provided, <figure> <img aria-labelledby="cap"> <figcaption id="cap">Chester the dog riding a bike without using his paws.</figcaption> </figure> but again aria-labelledby is only supported by a subset of browsers/AT so the safest bet is to provide an adequate accessible name using alt attribute. <figure> <img aria-describedby="cap" alt="dog on a bike"> <figcaption id="cap">Chester the dog riding a bike without using his paws.</figcaption> </figure> regards steve On 6 June 2010 20:21, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Shelley, > >> I'm not sure how the accessibility API mapping would work, though I've >> seen the spec that provides User Agent instructions. However, from a >> ARIA to element mapping perspective, I'm not sure how figure and aside >> would map. > > There is an ARIA mapping subgroup in the accessibility task force. I > think Steve heading that group. > > Steve, has the ARIA mapping group discussed the aside or figure elements? > > Thanks. > > Best Regards, > Laura > > On 6/6/10, Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> wrote: >> >> Laura Carlson wrote: >>> Hi John, >>> >>> Shelley wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> I appreciate her effort, but I believe that Sam has shut down the >>>>> discussion, which is a co-chair prerogative. I'm waiting resolution on >>>>> several change proposals before I determine my next steps. >>>>> >>> >>> John wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I don't think the chairs (Sam) has shut down any discussion at all - he >>>> has >>>> clearly given all a 'next-steps' roadmap that actually has two options - >>>> file bug reports with specific actionable items, as well as leaving the >>>> door >>>> open to a Formal Objection (with an apparent preference for bug reports >>>> first). >>>> >>> >>> Thanks. I hope people have the time and the wisdom to do what is best. >>> >>> Creating elements that are inherently accessible, that provide >>> accessibility from the get-go, with no additional work by the author >>> is could be a win for accessibility. A mechanism to provide a native >>> aside element ala the WAI-ARIA "complimentary" landmark role is a good >>> idea. It could be applied to an area containing associated content. >>> >>> In the counter change proposal it says that the aside element >>> "expresses this semantic directly in the markup, allowing other types >>> of UAs to give their users similar ability to skip over irrelevant >>> content and return to it at their leisure". >>> >>> Do you think HTML5 specifies how devices are to interact with aside >>> and skip the content clearly enough? Do you see any flaws in the >>> specification of the aside element? >>> >>> >> >> Not part of the group, but I wanted to respond to this question, and >> also explain why I said neither is accessible. Thanks for cc'ing me on >> the email, Laura. >> >> Some time back when we were discussing all of the new elements, I made a >> statement that so many new elements are going to be a burden on AT >> devices, too. At that time, one of the group members stated that rather >> than AT devices having to learn the new elements, such as "figure" and >> "aside", each would be mapped to the existing accessibility API by the >> browser companies, so they would be accessible "out of the box". >> >> This made a lot of sense to me, and is the reason I didn't include the >> elements being an additional burden on AT devices as an objection to >> figure and aside. >> >> However, seems to me for this to work, this accessibility mapping needs >> to be stated. Otherwise, each browser vendor could map the elements >> differently. Now, perhaps another spec is the place, but I would think >> that the HTML5 spec would be the better place, since it is the spec that >> originated the elements. >> >> I'm not sure how the accessibility API mapping would work, though I've >> seen the spec that provides User Agent instructions. However, from a >> ARIA to element mapping perspective, I'm not sure how figure and aside >> would map. For instance, if aside is treated as a typographical sidebar >> or note, there is an ARIA role of note that fits this use. However, if >> aside is treated as a web page sidebar, the more appropriate role is >> complementary. The two are not the same in ARIA, so we have to assume >> the two are not the same in the accessibility API, either. >> >> So, in my opinion, I don't believe aside, as currently defined in the >> HTML5 spec, is accessible. I'm not an accessibility expert, though. >> Perhaps the experts don't see this as a problem. >> >> Figure is another issue, as you have also noted. If figure really were >> captioning for a graphic, I think there could be a clean accessibility >> mapping, but because figure can include most anything, you start to have >> some interesting issues. >> >> And figures really aren't meant to be 'skipped' typographically. They're >> actually an important part of the content, but are managed differently >> because larger images may not fit well where they are needed within >> printed material. When people say, "See Figure ..." they really mean for >> folks to look at that figure -- it's complementary to the text. It >> clarifies and expands on the text. It's never meant to be skipped. >> >> I'm not sure how figure got redefined to something that can be skipped. >> From an accessibility perspective, though, if it's managed as something >> that can be easily skipped, those needing this functionality may end up >> with a less than ideal experience. They may actually _lose_ important >> information. >> >> In my read of the HTML5 spec, I don't see anything addressing these >> issues. I imagine this could be covered in another spec, but there's >> nothing detailing this, or providing a plan. >> >> Anyway, your questions are good. I failed to get the elements removed, >> and am concerned that this failure then meant that these elements were >> not going to be 'cleaned up'. I should have provided an alternative >> change proposal--keep the elements and redefine and clean them up--but I >> genuinely believe the ARIA approach to be the better one, and couldn't >> support an alternative I felt to be inferior. >> >>> Do you (or anyone else) see any ways in which the aside element should >>> be improved in HTML5? Or do you consider it okay as is? >>> >>> In regards to the figure/figcaption elements, there is no doubt that a >>> mechanism to explicitly provide a caption for an image is a good idea. >>> >>> Do you think that the figure/figcaption elements are specified correctly? >>> >>> The majority of style guides disallow tables as content for a figure. >>> But HTML5 does not. It allows any flow content in the figure element >>> not just images. Do you think this present any problems? >>> >>> Do you anticipate nesting a table into figure causing any problems? >>> >>> Do you see any issues existing with a figcaption + table caption >>> scenario? A table caption is read by JAWS. Do you foresee a figcaption >>> to be read in the same way? When a table element is the only content >>> in a figure element other than the figcaption, the spec says that the >>> caption element should be omitted in favor of the figcaption do you >>> think this is speced correctly? >>> >>> Do you think that multiple tables in a figure element would be read >>> correctly? It seems that they should linearize, do you think would >>> that they would? >>> >>> The spec does not define how the figure is associated with the >>> original content. The counter proposal states, >>> >>> "Users interacting visually with the article can easily skip past this >>> content temporarily and avoid interrupting their reading of the main >>> article, and then return to the content to understand it when they >>> feel comfortable. Expressing this semantic directly in markup allows >>> alternative UAs to present their users with the same ability, thus >>> improving Accessibility." >>> >>> The spec does not say devices should have the ability to skip over the >>> figures, and return later, do you think that would be useful? The >>> figure element could be located outside of an article; it could be >>> located in another part of the web page, even another web page. It is >>> not specified how a connection between this physically separated >>> element is relate back to the original article element. Do you think >>> that the spec should specify how this is to be accomplished or >>> anything in this regards? >>> >>> Do you (or anyone else) see any ways in which the figure element >>> should be improved in HTML5? Or do you consider the element okay as >>> is? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Kindest regards, >>> Laura >>> >>> >> >> Shelley >> >> > > > -- > Laura L. Carlson > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG Europe Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org Web Accessibility Toolbar - http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 10:19:21 UTC