Re: figcaption NOT an replacement for alt in HTML5

I’ve not seen any mention that the other purpose for Alt Text is that if the image does not load or cannot load, isn't Alt Text the only text that is presented for where the image was?

Alan






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Sailesh Panchang
Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎January‎ ‎17‎, ‎2014 ‎12‎:‎52‎ ‎PM
To: WCAG
Cc: Alastair Campbell, Steve Faulkner, David MacDonald





Alastair wrote:
>>  I think it would be better placed under 1.3.1 as a grouping mechanism.
>> Typical authors (in my experience) assume people can see the image when writing >> the caption. Alt text is something else.
>> Trying to look at this from all points of view (content, UA, AT) I'd be a lot more >>comfortable is there were not an exception for alt text, it leads to a lot of >>complications.

The same views were expressed in the earlier thread on caption v/s alt [1]
"the figure element is a tool for supporting SC 1.3.1 and
the figcaption's  primary purpose is to label the figure;  that it can
be used to label an image within is secondary if not incidental.
I do not see why it is critical to grant an exception for not using
alt only in this situation. It simply complicates matters for
developers and testers".

I think when the condition "when alt is not available at time of
publication" really means that the content is not ready for a final
accessibility assessment and certification, and  The website is still
work in progress. Should the specs address this condition?
It is not uncommon to be told by the client's dev team  that the
missing alt text or label text  for a form control has to be approved
by some other department within the org and they cannot fix the issue
"right now". Will this also be  a case of 'alt not available at time
of publication' like user uploaded pictures on a site for which a
technique needs to be introduced?
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2014JanMar/0056.html

Thanks and regards,

Sailesh Panchang


On 1/17/14, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> "I think the above is clearly a case where the figcaption text is a caption
> and should be identified as such. And would go further to say that the
> caption text is an adequate text alternative."
>
> In that case I would agree, but I think it is the minority case where
> caption=alt.
>
> Have a look at common cases, I think the BBC is pretty typical of well-done
> images/captions:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25778334

>
> They aren't using HTML5, but the caption for the first image is " The couple
> met at the Rugby World Cup in Australia in 2003", no clue as to the couple
> in question.
>
> The alt is  "Zara Phillips and Mike Tindall", vital information in the
> image.
>
> Typical authors (in my experience) assume people can see the image when
> writing the caption. Alt text is something else.
>
> -Alastair
>
>