- From: Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@myrealbox.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:24:53 -0800
On Nov 9, 2006, at 11:57 AM, Jeff Seager wrote:
> ...
> Among all literate people, I believe there is a longstanding
> expectation that pictures are accompanied by meaningful descriptions
> (usually below the image, but often to one side). The absence of image
> captioning seems to me to be an oversight, or at least an overlooked
> possibility, in the HTML/XHTML standards. As I was taught, a proper
> caption should not describe the picture (as ALT should), but
> complement or elucidate the information presented by the graphic.
alt= should not describe a picture, but rather be a text alternative,
because a description is a non-sequitur in a non-visual medium.
(Unless, perhaps, the UA precedes it with the phrase "And if you
weren't so blind you could see an image here that shows...":-)
Anyway, I support the idea of a caption *element* to accompany images.
This would have two benefits over an attribute:
1. It could contain markup, which an attribute cannot.
2. With a for= attribute, it could apply to an image elsewhere in the
document, which would be useful for the print medium. For example:
<p>
<legend for="classphoto"><i class="printonly">Top left:</i>
The class of 2006.</legend>
<legend for="bandseniors"><i class="printonly">Top right:</i>
Simone with her parents on graduation day.</legend>
</p>
(For the screen medium, ideally UAs would place a caption adjacent
to the relevant image, regardless of where the caption occurred in
the document.)
I suggest that this element behave in the opposite way from alt=:
whereas alt= should be presented only if the image itself is *not*
presented, the caption element should be presented only if the image
itself *is* presented. Otherwise there would be the same problem with
non-sequiturs in non-visual media as there is with descriptive alt=.
--
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/
Received on Saturday, 11 November 2006 21:24:53 UTC