- From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:17:50 -0500
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Hi Shelly, > > Shelley Powers, Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:42:01 -0500: > >> Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> >>> Shelley Powers, Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:17:19 -0500: >>> > [...] > >>>> I would say that img should be treated the same, regardless of >>>> whether it's in a figure element or not. It should have a non-empty >>>> alt tag. We hope people would have enough commonsense not to use >>>> figure for a decorative image. >>>> >>>> >>> You yourself have quoted the example from WAI-ARIA (because you >>> recommend using @role and aria-* rather than <figure>), where there >>> is a caption *and* the image has role="presentation". Sorry, but I >>> quote it again: >>> >>> <div role="img" aria-labelledby="caption"> >>> <img src="example.png" role="presentation" alt=""> >>> <p id="caption">A visible text caption labeling the image.</p> >>> </div> >>> >>> So even if the one - or all - <img> elements of a <figure> are >>> defined to have role="presentation", that doesn't mean that the >>> image as such is presentational. >>> >> My example in my counter-proposal was the following: >> > > Correct. I now see that I overlooked that you actually stated that you > - for some reason - modified the WAI-ARIA example - my emphasis: > > ]] > As an example, in the WAI-ARIA 1.0 specification, there is an image > listing _that_I_modified_, below: > [[ > > >> <div role="img" aria-labelledby="caption"> >> <img src="example.png" alt="Some descriptive text"> >> <p id="caption">A visible text caption labeling the image.</p> >> </div> >> >> Which I believed to be equivalent to figure and figcaption. >> > > It should be damn close. Including the way that you designate the role > of the <div> container to be role="img". The only thing I don't grok, > is why you found it necessary to a) add content to @alt and b) remove > role="presentation" - I don't see that this increases the similarity. > > >> I don't believe I referenced role="presentation". >> > > No. You modified the example, for some reason. > > Just a mistake on my part. I went back to the example, and I can see the purpose of the role in the img element now. But yes, if the div contents are given a img role, according to the WAI-ARIA, since the role and text are associated now with the div, the img element, itself, doesn't have to map to the accessibility API. Sorry. My bad. >> And the role=presentation has some interesting semantics that make >> its use with figure an interesting challenge. If you attach it to >> figure, the figure element isn't mapped to the accessibility API, but >> supposedly the contents could be. >> >> I would think using figure with role="presentation" is opening a can >> of worms with potentially conflicting semantics. >> > > If you think so, then you should also take it up in context of > WAI-ARIA. I, for one, find myself finding WAI-ARIA completely rational. > I must say that I really have trouble seeing how the following can by > any more controversial ... > > <figure role="img"> > <img src="example.png" role="presentation" alt=""> > <summary>A visible text caption labeling the image.</summary> > </figure> > > .... than this (WAI-ARIA's example): > > <div role="img" aria-labelledby="caption"> > <img src="example.png" role="presentation" alt=""> > <p id="caption">A visible text caption labeling the image.</p> > </div> > Shelley
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 20:18:28 UTC