- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 21:34:38 +0200
- To: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
- Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, Peter Winnberg <peter.winnberg@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
Adrian Roselli, Sun, 9 Sep 2012 13:24:38 +0000: >> From: Leif Halvard Silli >>>> AT: ATs are *probably* more lucky, since they they tend to not >>>> rely on contextual menus. Perhaps e.g. Steve understand >>>> more on this problem? > This is the part where I have to defer. [...] I have now tested in JAWS: As I had assumed, it did work fine there. > Having run through your test pages (on my netbook using Firefox and > Opera, but that's it since my test machines aren't here), I can see > the missing @longdesc option in the context menu. Thanks for confirming test 1. http://malform.no/testing/a-demo-of/picture-element-accessible-longdesc/test1 > I am resistant to proposing a polyfill when there is a pure-HTML > solution/option available. I don't know that there is yet [...] See what I said about JAWS above. However, the question is: Is it acceptable that @longdesc works worse inside <picture> than outside <picture>? (Namely, that it does not work in Opera, iCab etc unless one hacks/polyfills support (see below).) > I do see that the menu (re)appears in your second example. Thanks for conforming test 2: http://malform.no/testing/a-demo-of/picture-element-accessible-longdesc#test2 >> AND BY THE WAY: It would/could be possible to combine the solutions. >> E.g. one could use the @longdesc as polyfill, in conjunction with a >> fallback based solution. I think that authors should be permitted to >> provide the fallback via markup as long if they want and know how to do >> it. > > I am not against combining solutions, but again I am a little out of > my arena and don't feel I can give an educated opinion on that (yet). In Firefox, if you do the following, then the link will be presented as a longdesc link: <img src=f alt=Text aria-describedby=link> <a hidden="" href=bar id=link >Txt</a> If one add @longdesc as well, then both are covered. (But so far this technique doesn't really extend the support in anyway, as the only browser that offers this behavior also works with @longdesc.) >> The alternative to @longdesc does not need to be Laura's <desc>. It >> could be a link: >> >> <picture> >> <img src=file alt="Photo." > >> <span>Short description.</span> >> <a href=longdesc>Link.</a> >> </picture> > > I am back to my prior argument that text inside a <picture>, outside > of an attribute, delivers content to users that don't need/want it. > Whether it's a link, a <desc>, or a <span>, it's still extra content. > Now, the link you suggest at least addresses the issue with pushing > too much content and also with the issue of being able to re-use > content. I do like that if we are in a position where an attribute > just can't work. An detail regarding a <desc> is whether it was Laura's intention that one should be able to do this - note the <p>: <p> <picture> <img alt=photo src=foo > <desc> <table>a big table</table> </desc> </picture> </p> If we ignore the <desc>, the - provided we can assume that <picture> would operate like <video> does - the <table> would, in the DOM, be pushed outside <picture>. I just say this to, once again, point out that HTML5 has some "parsing peculiarities" that would/should naturally prevent many authors from adding too much long fallback inside <picture>. Authors could circumvent this peculiarity by replacing the <span> with a <div> so it is just a "mild" way to make them do the right thing. > Before I believe we are at that point, I'd like to hear more from > others who use AT and/or work with those who do. While I work with > many who do, I am only one perspective on this. The role of VoiceOver in our debate is, largely, as an example of one AT which doesn't support @longdesc. However, I tested my test page in VoiceOver for iPad this weekend. And then I noticed that the technique I use in that test page where I hide the content in elements, behind the <img>, does not work so well. For example, when I touch the image in test 2, then nothing is being read out to the user. This would have changed if I had included the alternative text inside attributes. Either inside the @alt or via @araia-label/-labelledby/-describedby. I think I will sum up the accessibility situation like this: (A) If responsive images are implemented via a new <picture> element, then it is a pity to not take advantage of this element by allowing alternative text via mark-up in the fallback. (B) But the <picture> model to a large part gets in the way if the intention *anyway* is to let the @alt and @longdesc of a child <img> element take care of the alternative text. If that is the intention, then - from an accessibility point of view - it seems to me that we would be better off going for an extension of the <img> element. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 9 September 2012 19:35:11 UTC