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

[Steve Faulkner]

>
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Martin Janecke wrote:
> > Am 17.06.2013 um 11:35 schrieb Steve Faulkner:
> > >
> > > the restriction on figure/figcaption is only in the whawtg spec not
> > > the W3C HTML spec as it was not deemed a useful or practical
> > > restriction when reviewed by the HTML WG.
> >
> > Sounds lovely, this would indeed solve my use case.
>
> Could you elaborate on what your use case and why it's not handled?
>
> I don't understand why <figure> as defined in the WHATWG spec doesn't work
> for your case. What does the page look like?
>
>
> > I don't know how to assess that the restriction is dropped in a W3C
> > draft but still included in the WHATWG version, though. Is this
> > consensus and likely to become standard or still very uncertain
> > territory?
>
> The W3C spec is a fork of the WHATWG standard. I can't speak for what
> they're doing (and this would be the wrong list to discuss it, anyway). As
> far as the WHATWG spec goes, we try to base decisions on use cases.
>
> I have answered martins question on a more appropriate list [1]


>
> For <figure>, the idea is that it should be reasonable to style <figure>
> with something like:
>
>    figure { float: right; }
>
> If we don't say that <figure>'s contents can be moved in this way, then
> that becomes much less viable.
>
> If what you want is just an inline image followed by some text, though,
> you don't need <figure> or title="" -- you can just put in the image and
> the text, as in:
>
>    <img src="the image"> <!-- FIXME: replacement text is missing -->
>    <p>More text...
>
> It's hard to know without looking at specific examples exactly what the
> optimal markup should be, though.
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013, Steve Faulkner 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--
>
> ...so the browsers are buggy. This is not unusual. File bugs. :-) Indeed,
> since you've demonstrated yourself able to write code, you could just go
> and fix the bugs directly. :-)
>
> This behavior doesn't appear to be due to a bug, its by design, the title
attribute is used as an accessible name of last resort for all elements and
its implemented pretty much in the same (interoperable) way in all browsers.


>
> Writing specs for the lowest-common-denominator is not the way we'll get a
> usable, accessible Web. We might sometimes be forced to when there are
> compat requirements with massively deployed content that Web author are
> relying on that prevent certain behaviours from being fixed, but this
> really doesn't apply in the case of ATs, since the vast majority of
> authors have never tested how their pages work in ATs.
>
>
I don't understand what you are saying here, can you elaborate?



[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Jun/0072.html

--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>