- From: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:18:16 +0100
- To: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:05:23 +0100, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Shelley, > > Steve wrote: > >>> # 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. > > Shelley wrote: > >> Disagree, 100%. >> >> The figure element can have a dozen images, two tables, a code block or >> two, paragraphs, and div elements. The figcaption names all of this, not >> just the img element (s). >> >> The alt attribute must be provided regardless of figcaption, as figure >> is defined now. > > Good catch Shelley. Okay, how about restricting it to: > > When a figure has an image as sole content use a <figcaption> as the > accessible name for the image. But in scenarios of multiple images in > a figure element alt rules apply. from an education perspective, I think that's a very difficult sell. (It's difficult enough to sell the concept of alt text full stop, generally). We'll also have instances where an author adds a second image later / images are dragged in from a CMS and the "first" image would need retrospective amendment. I'd prefer alt="" if the figcaption adequately captions the image or images, regardless of how many there are. -- Hang loose and stay groovy, Bruce Lawson Web Evangelist www.opera.com (work) www.brucelawson.co.uk (personal) www.twitter.com/brucel Pre-order my HTML5 book www.introducinghtml5.com
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 16:19:50 UTC