RE: [html-techs-tf] caption vs alt

Josh wrote:
> Agreed, or if the ability to add @alt just isn't available then the <figcaption> may well end up being 
> a combined description of the image, or parts or it - or a brief gestalt view - combined with witty 
> comment and so on."

But is that enough for SC 1.1.1?

Perhaps I'm just not getting the aim of the technique, as we seem to agree on the usage and issues. (It is the first time I've taken on a technique, so this is very possible.)

If there is a technique for SC 1.1.1 where figcaption is used instead of @alt, it moves the problem (lack of alt text) to another element, but it doesn't solve the problem. 

There are two basic issues going on:
1. Most people don't know how (or what) to add for alt text without support.
2. There are systems which don't allow for adding @alt, but do allow for captions.

If a system doesn't allow for @alt, it wouldn't support users in adding alt text or suitable figcaptions. Making the figcaption an acceptable alternative simply hides the issue of not having suitable alternative text. 
It's like adding null @alts to all the images automatically, and hoping the visible text explains everything.

I seem to remember there was a big discussion about whether @alt should be required for HTML5, which is a similar issue. I'm not sure what the outcome was, has that been decided and written down somewhere? 

If it was decided that @alt isn't required, wouldn't we also need to update H2 [1] for combining an image and text into one link? You could apply a grouping role to the link, and then you wouldn't need alt text on the image. 

Kind regards,

-Alastair

1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/H2

Received on Monday, 13 January 2014 11:42:41 UTC