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

RE: Adaptive Image Element Proposal

From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:40:42 +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: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E265356@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no]
> > Adrian Roselli, Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:07:26 +0000:
> >> From: Leif Halvard Silli
> >>> Adrian Roselli, Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:24:54 +0000:
> >>>> From: Leif Halvard Silli
> > Web content isn't just created by web developers. So very much of it
> > is created in browsers with WYSIWYG controls that something like
> > Dreamweaver (if it even has ARIA support) only goes so far. In the
> > case of a CMS, the vast majority of that content is being entered by
> > non-web folk, which means they are using WYSIWYG editors like CKedit
> > (which does not have any ARIA that I could find) and others.
> This is a good point, I agree. However, e.g. in CKEditor 4 (beta), it is simply to
> fake it: Just ad the content of the next line as the sole content of the class
> attribute, for instance:
> " aria-labelledby="parent
> And voila, you have split the attribute.

I'm not challenging your method -- clearly it will work.

However, I have a high degree of confidence that I will not be able to train my authors well enough to do this without risking breaking the rest of the element (errant spaces, quotes, missing quotes, etc.). I have spent over a decade training non-web-folk to use WYSIWYG editors and just getting them to fill out @alt typically fails. This takes it to another level.

Regardless, I have been making my point about the ease with which WYSIWYG editor makers can make their tools support aspects of <picture> -- when it is approved -- as well as how easy it can be for end users to never think about associated an <img> with a <picture> if all the tool does is replicate the @alt automagically. I am not talking about how to do it today.

If I was, I'd still stick with @alt over @aria-labelledby, if only because it's a few characters and copy-paste -- again, if I could convince an end user to even drop into source view.

> > I am trying to keep in mind the marketing assistant who has to upload
> > a press release and embed a picture as part of it. He/she is likely
> > doing it via a CMS and a browser-based WYSIWYG. Those are the tools
> > about which I am most concerned.
> So how do you think he/she would add <picture> *and* the <img> element
> as child? May be it is could work if (s)he adds img first, and then wraps an
> <picture> around it? Hm ... It is some time since I used CKeditor ... But I see
> that its is possible to add a link in its image tool. So, OK, they could perhaps
> add picture element capability to the the same tool. I agree - it is possible.

He/she won't until the WYSIWYG editor supports that feature.

> >>>>>>  <figure>
> >>>>>>   <ficaption>Caption</figcaption>
> >>>>>>    <picture>
> >>>>>>     <source src=files >
> >>>>>>     <img src=file >
> >>>>>>    </picture>
> >>>>>>  </figure>
> >> OK. Then check the figure element example in the section "Graphical
> >> representation of some of the surrounding text". [1] Or try the
> >> validator. [2]
> >
> > I must be confused about your example. leads off with the
> > statement "[T]he alt attribute must be present but its value must be
> > the empty string." That tells me there must still be an @alt on the
> > <img>. Your validator example appears to say the same thing.
> Let's take it again. Regarding the validation example shows two things:
> First it contains a figure element, like the above, but without the <picture> -
> just the <img>. That validates. Then it contains the same <img> element
> OUTSIDE the figure element. THat does not validate. This was done to make
> you get the point faster. Sorry that it confused you.
> As for the spec text: If you read the entire (until
> begins) - or use a search tool - then you will get to read about figure.
> > I am of the opinion that in your example the <img> should have an
> > @alt.
> OK. Strictly speaking, the above example is not covered by HTML5, yet, so.

That might explain where my brain froze.

> > According to the new <picture> proposal, the <picture> should also
> > have an @alt of the same value as the <img>. I'm not seeing anything
> > in the spec that disagrees with the first part of what I said, so
> > perhaps we aren't talking about the same thing?
> You just have to read it again:

Ok, I waded back through our email trail, I re-read, I looked at the examples, I slept a few hours last night, and I can honestly say I have no recollection or understanding of the point you are making here.

I accept responsibility for not getting it, so that's not your fault, but ... I've got nothing.
Received on Friday, 31 August 2012 13:41:43 UTC

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