W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2016

Re: SVG 2 review request

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 10:49:24 +0100
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>, "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Amelia Bellamy-Royds' <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>, 'Rich Morin' <rdm@cfcl.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, 'Nikos Andronikos' <Nikos.Andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>, 'www-svg' <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <46f61ea2-8255-3628-3e10-773d6141f12f@splintered.co.uk>
On 13/08/2016 05:50, Doug Schepers wrote:

> I'd like to hear a more concrete explanation of why interactivity in
> <img> must be disallowed.

Maybe not a deeply technical explanation, but: I would argue that when 
talking about an "image", people are thinking about something visual, 
presentational, non-interactive (though possibly animated). The <img> 
element is the HTML representation of this concept. In fact, the spec 
(for convenience, just going to point to 
https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#the-img-element) says

"[...] a non-interactive, optionally animated, image resource that is 
neither paged nor scripted."

<img> is exposed to AT with a role of image, and again this is 
understood (by users and AT) to be something non-interactive.

*IF* you wanted to add something interactive inside an <img>, you'd need 
to signal this with at least the addition of a different role="..." 
attribute (and then change user agent behavior, which would assume <img> 
is non-interactive, so presumably doesn't cater for focusability etc). 
But this still feels like a conceptual stretch...

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Saturday, 13 August 2016 09:49:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 13 August 2016 09:49:52 UTC