Hi,
A good question. I did not immediately have an answer, but Kasper pointed out to me that according to the spec here: https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-aam-1.1/#terminology (section 2.D) the Alt attribute will be correctly outputted as the Accessible Name, since no aria-label, aria-labelledby or aria-describedby are set.
/Tobias
From: Wilco Fiers [mailto:wilco.fiers@deque.com]
Sent: 11. august 2017 12:16
To: Alistair Garrison <alistair.garrison@levelaccess.com>
Cc: Accessibility Conformance Testing <public-wcag-act@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Question - <img role="img" src="someimage.png" alt="ok alternative">
Hi Alistair,
I don't see why that should be a violation, unless there are AT that don't support it, in which case it's an accessibility support question. My take on things generally is that if it works in AT, it passes, regardless of what the specs say. WCAG doesn't tell you to follow specs, it tells you to make something that works in AT.
Wilco
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Alistair Garrison <alistair.garrison@levelaccess.com<mailto:alistair.garrison@levelaccess.com>> wrote:
Hi,
<img role="img" src="someimage.png" alt="ok alternative">
I wanted to gain reaction from the ACT TF with regard to this piece of code. Assume the alt text is a verified ok alternative description for the image.
The question being – does this element have a valid or invalid mechanism for calculating an Accessible Name (with regard to a strict interpretation of aria, with no heuristic guessing)?
Very interested to hear thoughts / comments
Alistair
---
Alistair Garrison
Director of Accessibility Research
Level Access (formerly SSB Bart Group)
--
Wilco Fiers
Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG
[cid:image001.gif@01D3129D.84D5DCD0]
