- From: Ashley Sheridan <ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:00:28 +0000
On Tue, 2012-02-07 at 10:56 +0000, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: > On 2/7/12, Ashley Sheridan <ash at ashleysheridan.co.uk> wrote: > > The main problem I see with that is that the <object> tag doesn't have > > the same accessibility attributes, so you'd effectively lock out a lot > > of people using browsers that don't understand the context of the tag in > > this case. I think the better way is to add something to the <img> tag > > as you'd still have full backwards compatibility. > > > What accessibility features, exactly? For compatibility, the deepest > child of <object> would be <img alt>, inheriting the accessibility > features of img. Alternatively, it might just as well be markup, which > is surely better accessibility wise than @alt and @longdesc. > Furthermore, you could theoretically link to an animation, a still and > a sound and embed a hypertext fallback. > (I'm sorry if <object>'s being generally terrible for accessibility > has been established already.) Because browsers about now understand how to display an image in the object tag, and so won't do anything with the nested image inside of it, thus negating any benefit of the alt tag within it. Adding images that way would prevent modern browsers from being accessible. -- Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 03:00:28 UTC