W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2013

Re: [whatwg] @aria-labelledby | Re: @generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt, figure with figcaption

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:57:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei8uN6DJJgmJM0QstH5DmF+1BVGFZiZkeNT8j2csxLZfng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: whatwg <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Steve Faulkner
<faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Am 07.06.2013 um 23:13 schrieb Ian Hickson:
>>
>> >> <img src="..." title="image">
>> >
>> > If you have a caption from the user (as opposed to replacement text),
>> then
>> > this is a perfectly valid option. It's as valid as the <figure> case, and
>> > means the same thing.
>> >
>> > [...]
>>
>>
>
> the above statement is bad advice:
>
> browsers map title to the accessible name in accessibility APIs when alt is
> absent, so
>
> in the following cases:
>
> <img src="..." title="poot">
>
> <img src="..." alt="poot">
>
> the accessible name is 'poot'.
>
> it is only when there is an accessible name already provided that title is
> used as an accessible description:
>
> <img src="..." alt="poot" title="description of poot">
>
> Also note that as per the W3C HTML spec, use of the title without an alt is
> non conforming[1] as it does not represent a caption for an image and as
> you point out is hidden from a variety of users due to a long and
> consistent history of poor implementation.

Steve,

Does the spec still require that if an implementation encounters an
image with a title but without an alt to present that to users with
and without AT in a useful way?

I.e. is the difference between the W3C and WHATWG versions here just a
difference in authoring requirements? Or also a difference in
implementations requirements?

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 10:58:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:22 UTC