- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:57:23 +0200
- 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