W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > August 2012

RE: Adaptive Image Element Proposal

From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:24:54 +0000
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E263BCB@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no]
> > Adrian Roselli, Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:10:29 +0000:
> >> From: Leif Halvard Silli:
> >>> Adrian Roselli, Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:30:41 +0000:
> >>>> From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no]
> >>>>> Adrian Roselli, Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:18:24 +0000:
> >>>>>>> From: Leif Halvard Silli, Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:53 AM
[...] 
> > [...] However, making this a requirement for validation puts the onus
> > on the developer and acts as a reminder to do his/her job.
> 
> That is why I propose a validatable rule w.r.t. aria-labelledby. The proposal
> from the editors does not offer any new validatable rules. So we will probably
> see many img elements whose alt value differ from the picture element. (It
> is of course "validatable" in the sense that it is easy to see if two alt attribute
> are identical or not. However, they have not made into a rule.)

Got it. I agree, a validatable rule works, but I'd still like to see @alt required regardless. That is also a validatable rule.


> For toolmakers, it seems - to me - simpler to just let img@aria-labelledby
> point to the picture element. (Or, eventually, point from picture to img - but
> then we need validation rules for the picture element - instead.) Getting
> WYSIWYG tool *duplicate* alt attributes ... my guess is we will never see
> them do that. But I could be wrong.

I disagree. In evaluating WYSIWYG editors (which is where most non-web folk enter their content) nearly all of them provide a field to enter @alt text, some of them more prominently than others. The UI doesn't need to change -- just keep asking for the value and now duplicate it when writing the HTML. While it's been 6 months since I last checked, none of them supported ARIA anywhere I saw and, given the confusion I see about ARIA and its support, I don't see toolmakers approaching it as readily as just duplicating @alt.


> >>  <figure>
> >>   <ficaption>Caption</figcaption>
> >>    <picture>
> >>     <source src=files >
> >>     <img src=file >
> >>    </picture>
> >>  </figure>
> >
> > Your example has not @alt anywhere. Trying to stay in the scope of the
> > <picture> element proposal, I think it is missing two @alts.
> 
> Confer the spec:
> 
> ]]
>    If the src attribute is set and the alt attribute is not
>    [...]
>    If the image is a descendant of a figure element that has a child figcaption
> element, and, ignoring the figcaption element and its descendants, the
> figure element has no Text node descendants other than inter-element
> whitespace, and no embedded content descendant other than the img
> element, then the contents of the first such figcaption element are the
> caption information; abort these steps.
> [[
> 
> So, it seems - when I read it more closely now - that this example is
> *already* legal.
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/the-img-element.html#img-good


That language lives in the clause: " If the src attribute is set and the alt attribute is not [then...]" I do not take that to mean a missing @alt is legal but simply how the browser should behave when it has been omitted. I don't feel that overrides 4.8.1.1.1 " Except where otherwise specified, the alt attribute must be specified and its value must not be empty; the value must be an appropriate replacement for the image. "




Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 18:25:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:06:07 UTC